Woodberry v. Vannoy et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DERRICK WOODBERRY 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-2314
DARREL VANNOY 	SECTION “M” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Pending before the Court is petitioner Derrick Woodberry’s Motion for Discovery and In
Camera Review (ECF No. 20). Woodberry filed a petition for habeas corpus brought under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2013 Orleans Parish conviction and sentence for aggravated rape,
forcible rape, second-degree kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping. ECF No. 4 at 1. With his
petition, Woodberry also filed a motion to stay the proceedings stating that he is still exhausting
two claims in state court for ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 2 at 1.
In his motion for discovery, Woodberry requests that the Court order discovery and in
camera review of materials that he states contain Brady/Giglio violations. ECF No. 20 at 1. 	The
materials Woodberry requests consist of a grand jury transcript, materials from a 2013 in camera
inspection, Detective Carter’s complete investigative file, prosecution files, and documents such
as a defense file and civil case documents related to Darrin Hill. Id. Woodberry states he has good
cause for this discovery as it will allow development of facts that will reveal systemic Brady
violations. Id. at 3. In the event the State objects to direct production of the requested discovery
based on privilege, Woodberry requests the Court conduct an in camera review of the requested
materials. Id. at 7.
Rule 6(A) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[a] judge may, for
good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Case 2:25-cv-02314-BWA-KWR Document 21 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 3

2
may limit the extent of discovery.” 	The United States Supreme Court has held that Rule 6 was
meant to be consistent with its prior ruling in Harris v. Nelson where the Court first concluded that
limited discovery should be allowed in habeas corpus proceedings:
[w]here specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the
petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . .
. entitled to relief, it is the duty of the court to provide the necessary facilities and
procedures for an adequate inquiry.
Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295 (1969); Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09.
In Bracy, cited by Woodberry, the Supreme Court also instructed that a court considering
the grant of discovery must evaluate the “essential elements” of the underlying federal habeas
claim to determine if there is good cause for the requested discovery. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904
(citation omitted). Good cause is established only if “specific allegations before the court show
reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate
that he is confined illegally and is therefore entitled to relief.” Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300
(1969); Murphy v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 809, 814 (5th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “good cause” under
the rules permitting discovery in habeas cases “may be found when a petition for habeas relief
“establishes a prima facie claim for relief”). Furthermore, “a petitioner’s factual allegations must
be specific, as opposed to merely speculative or conclusory, to justify discovery under Rule 6.”
Murphy, 205 F.3d at 814.
At this juncture, the Court is not in a position to conclude whether Woodberry has
established a prima facie claim for relief that would entitle him to the requested discovery. The
Court is still evaluating Woodberry’s claims for timeliness, exhaustion, and whether, as requested
by Woodberry’s pending motion, a stay of the proceedings is necessary. Should the Court require
further documentation to evaluate Woodberry’s petition, the record may be expanded at that time.
Case 2:25-cv-02314-BWA-KWR Document 21 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 3

3
See Rule 7(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“[i]f the petition is not dismissed, the
judge may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials relating to the
petition.”). Any request to pursue discovery at this stage of the proceedings is premature. Thus,
Woodberry’s request is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Woodberry’s Motion for Discovery and In Camera Review
(ECF No. 20) is DENIED without prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of March, 2026.
______________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19th
Case 2:25-cv-02314-BWA-KWR Document 21 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 3