Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goad v. Bell

United States District Court, N.D. New York

January 15, 2020

GARY G. GOAD, Petitioner,
v.
EARL BELL, Superintendent, Respondent.

          GARY G. GOAD Petitioner pro se

          HON. LETITIA JAMES Attorney for Respondent New York State Attorney General DENNIS A. RAMBAUD, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General

          DECISION AND ORDER

          MAE A. D'AGOSTINO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1, Petition ("Pet."); Dkt. No. 1-1, Affidavit ("Aff."). On September 3, 2019, respondent was directed to answer the petition. Dkt. No. 7, Decision and Order dated 09/03/19.

         On October 21, 2019, the Court received petitioner's subpoena to produce documents and other various information. Dkt. No. 11, Subpoena. On October 23, 2019, the Court denied petitioner's motion without prejudice as premature. Dkt. No. 12, Text Order dated 10/23/19 ("October Order"). Specifically, the Court explained that it is the respondent's responsibility to "submit all relevant portions of the state court records with [the] . . . answer [and i]f, after examining respondent's submission, petitioner still s[ought] documents that [we]re not contained [there]in . . . [he could] file a motion for discovery[.]" Id.

         On December 20, 2019, respondent timely answered the petition. Dkt. No. 16, Answer; Dkt. No. 16-1, Memorandum of Law in Opposition; Dkt. No. 16-2, State Court Record ("SCR"). On December 26, 2019, the Court received a submission from petitioner. Dkt. No. 18. The Court ordered that, to the extent the submission was a motion for a default judgment, said motion was denied because respondent timely answered the petition. Dkt. No. 19, Text Order dated 12/26/19. Moreover, to the extent petitioner intended his submission to be in support of his prior request for a subpoena, that request was already denied in the October Order. Id. Lastly, to the extent petitioner intended the submission to act as a motion for discovery, the submission was denied because piecemeal litigation is not allowed by the Court. Id. If petitioner wished to file exhibits in support of a motion, he must first file a proper motion before the Court. Id.

         On December 30, 2019, the Court received several submissions from petitioner. Dkt. No. 20, Motion for Discovery/Expand the Record; Dkt. No. 21, Traverse; Dkt. Nos. 22, 25, 26, Exhibits in Support of Traverse; Dkt. No. 24, Motion for Default Judgment. Respondent opposed the motion for discovery. Dkt. No. 24. On January 8, 2020, the Court also received a request from petitioner for court-appointed counsel. Dkt. No. 27.

         For the following reasons, petitioner's motions for discovery, default judgment, and appointment of counsel are denied. Further, the matter is now fully briefed. No. further submissions are required from either party. The petition will be decided in due course.

         II. PETITION

         Petitioner is presently challenging his 2018 parole revocation. Pet. at 1.[1] Petitioner contends that he appealed the decision administratively, and it was affirmed. Id. at 2. Petitioner then filed multiple actions in Greene and Steuben County, which were either withdrawn or consolidated and ultimately denied on July 26, 2019. Pet. at 2; Aff. at 1-2. Petitioner also unsuccessfully attempted to appeal to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department; petitioner proffers that the New York Court of Appeals will not accept his appeal from the Third Department's decision. Aff. at 3.

         Petitioner argues that he is entitled to federal habeas relief because his Due Process rights were violated. Pet. at 4. Specifically, petitioner asserts that "no probable cause hearing was conducted pursuant to [Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision] Rule 5.08 and Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471[.]" Id. For a more complete statement of petitioner's claims, reference is made to the petition.

         III. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY/EXPAND THE RECORD

         As an initial matter, petitioner's motion for discovery was dated on December 20, 2019 and included the notation that "if th[e motion wa]s premature or [petitioner] ha[d] mistakenly assumed an incorrect filing date [he] respectfully ask[ed] these be held in abeyance of the correct filing date[.]" Dkt. No. 20 at 11. In the October Order, petitioner was explicitly directed to wait until after he had reviewed respondent's answer and the state court record before filing another motion for discovery or to expand the record. This provided petitioner the opportunity to evaluate what he received and identify any specific documents which were still missing from the record and explain why those documents needed to be provided. Instead, petitioner submitted a motion which demanded production of documents he already had or vaguely and prematurely requested non-specific ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.