Arthur v. Allen
| Decision Date | 14 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-14304.,03-14304. |
| Parties | Thomas D. ARTHUR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard F. ALLEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Suhana S. Han, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Theresa Marie Trzaskoma, Brune & Richard, LLP, New York City, for Arthur.
J. Clayton Crenshaw, Montgomery, AL, for Allen
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (No. 01-00983-CV-N-S); L. Scott Coogler, Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion June 21, 2006, 11th Cir., 2006, 452 F.3d 1234)
Before BIRCH, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the petitioner-appellant's petition for rehearing, the opinion, Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir.2006), we make the following modifications.
The discussion and analysis that follows the second paragraph under IV. DISCUSSION, B. Arthur's Claims of Exception to the Statute of Limitations, 2. Entitlement to a Hearing and Discovery, 452 F.3d at 1247-48, is deleted, and the following is substituted in its place:
Generally, "[a] habeas petitioner . . . is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course," but may be obtained upon showing "good cause," Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904, 117 S.Ct. at 1796-97, to believe that the evidence sought would "raise[ ] sufficient doubt about [his] guilt to undermine confidence in the result of the trial."1 Schlup, 513 U.S. at 317, 115 S.Ct. at 862. Good cause is demonstrated "`where specific allegations . . . show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he . . . is entitled to relief.'" Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09, 117 S.Ct. at 1799 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1091, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969)). Thus, good cause for discovery cannot arise from mere speculation. It is not enough, for example, to allege that "DNA testing could demonstrate that the same person who raped Judy Wicker also physically assaulted her, that this person's blood was on her blouse, that his hair was found in the Wicker residence, that he was in Judy Wicker's 1981 Buick Riveria, and that this person was not Mr. Arthur." Arthur's Petition for Rehearing at 14.
Recognizing that discovery cannot be ordered on the basis of pure hypothesis, Arthur's request relies heavily on the affidavits of High and Melson. But the credibility of those documents is fundamentally wounded by the affiants' own substantial retraction of the very content advanced to support Arthur's new alibi. For this reason, the affidavits do not furnish good cause to believe that the facts, if "fully developed" through the discovery sought, would be any different from those found at trial. See Bracy, 520...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Guerrera
-
Garcia v. Clark
...for discovery cannot arise from mere speculation" and "discovery cannot be ordered on the basis of pure hypothesis." Arthur v. Allen, 459 F.3d 1310, 1311 (11th Cir. 2006). Finally, and most important, this court has concluded that none of petitioner's habeas claims lack merit. Petitioner ha......
-
Kuenzel v. Allen
...than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him....” See Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324, 327, 115 S.Ct. 851;cf. Arthur v. Allen, 459 F.3d 1310, 1310–11 (11th Cir.2006) (petitioner's “mere speculation” about what the evidence, if tested, might show was insufficient to support discovery r......
-
Alcox v. Hartley
...Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 423, 113 S.Ct. 853, 872, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993) (O'Connor, J. concurring)), modified by, 459 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir.2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1338, 127 S.Ct. 2033, 167. L.Ed.2d 763 (2007); Melson, 548 F.3d at 1003, and these declarations fall into that bro......
-
The constitutionality of federal restrictions on the indemnification of attorneys' fees.
...to provide prisoners with adequate law libraries or legally trained assistance to prepare and file meaningful legal papers."), amended by 459 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2006); Simkins v. Bruce, 406 F.3d 1239, 1242 (10th Cir. 2005) (recognizing an access-to-courts claim for a prison's interference......