United States District Court, N.D. New York
GARY G. GOAD, Petitioner,
EARL BELL, Superintendent, Respondent.
G. GOAD Petitioner pro se
LETITIA JAMES Attorney for Respondent New York State Attorney
General DENNIS A. RAMBAUD, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General
DECISION AND ORDER
D'AGOSTINO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
is presently challenging his 2018 parole revocation. Pet. at
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.
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.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY/EXPAND THE RECORD
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