Legal Opinion

Sherman v. McDaniel

District Court, D. Nevada

Decided August 30, 2004No. CV-S-02-1349-LRH LRLPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

HICKS, District Judge.

I. Introduction and Procedural History 1

The petitioner in this capital habeas action has filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery. Petitioner does not make any showing that he has exhausted any of the claims on which he seeks discovery, or that those claims are not procedurally defaulted, and petitioner concedes that he did not pursued any discovery in state court. The Court will, therefore, deny the majority of petitioner’s motion, but will grant petitioner leave to conduct limited discovery to obtain certain records relating only to himself. As to that…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Williams v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Washington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Bracy v. GramleySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Harris v. NelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Keeney v. Tamayo-ReyesSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Sample v. ColsonDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2013
  2. United States v. SwisherDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 2011
  3. Chalmers v. MaysDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2022
  4. Harris v. QuickDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 2022
  5. Jordan v. MaysDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2021

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API