White v. Capra
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-00132
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In White v. Capra, Judge Wang denied Ajamu White’s request for discovery about counsel’s intern in his lineup-related habeas claim.
Ajamu White’s request for information about the intern who attended his lineup; the order did not decide the underlying habeas claim.
What happened
In White v. Capra, Ajamu White, representing himself, asked for information about the bar-examination results, professional standing, and permission to practice in the case for an intern who attended White’s 2012 lineup. White argued that his lawyer was constitutionally ineffective for sending an unlicensed intern to monitor the lineup.
The court explained that a person seeking habeas relief is not automatically entitled to discovery. Discovery requires specific allegations and a good reason to believe that the requested facts could support relief. The court found that White had not shown that reason. It also noted that the intern had already testified that he had graduated from law school and passed the New York bar exam, and that White had an exhibit showing the intern was admitted to the New York bar in 2013.
Judge Ona T. Wang denied White’s motion for discovery and directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entries ECF 29 and ECF 30. The order did not decide White’s underlying habeas claim.
The detailed version
- White v. Capra · No. 1:21-cv-00132
- Gregory Woods
- Sept. 23, 2022
Background
Ajamu White, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion seeking discovery about the person his attorney sent to attend White’s lineup on September 12, 2012. White requested information about that person’s bar-examination results, character-and-fitness status, and permission to practice in the case, both as of the lineup date and as of September 12, 2021. White argued that his attorney was constitutionally ineffective because the person sent to monitor the lineup was a law-school graduate whom White described as an unlicensed, non-barred intern.
Legal standard
The court applied Rule 6(a) of the rules governing federal cases challenging state convictions. That rule permits discovery only when the judge exercises discretion and the petitioner shows good cause. Good cause requires specific allegations giving the court reason to believe that developing the facts could show the petitioner is entitled to relief. The court may deny discovery when the petitioner provides no specific evidence that the requested information would support the petition.
Court’s analysis
The court found that White had not shown good cause. White had not given the court a reason to believe that developing the requested facts would establish his entitlement to habeas relief. The court also found that White already possessed much of the information he sought. At trial, the intern testified under oath that he was a law-school graduate and had passed the New York bar examination when he attended White’s lineup. White’s exhibit showed that the intern was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2013. The court took judicial notice—a formal recognition of a fact that does not require ordinary proof—that the intern was not admitted to the bar on September 12, 2012, and therefore was neither in good nor bad standing on that date.
Disposition
Judge Ona T. Wang denied White’s motion for discovery. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 29 and ECF 30. The order addressed only the discovery request and did not resolve the underlying habeas petition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.