Facts
- A California state prisoner, after exhausting state remedies, filed a federal habeas petition alleging his conviction relied on evidence obtained from an unconstitutional arrest and search.
- The district court ordered the warden to respond, granted an evidentiary hearing, and allowed the prisoner to serve interrogatories on the warden seeking facts about an informant’s alleged unreliability.
- The warden objected that there was no authority for interrogatories as discovery in a state-prisoner habeas proceeding.
- The district court overruled the objection and ordered the interrogatories answered.
- The court of appeals, on mandamus/prohibition, vacated the discovery order, concluding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure discovery provisions did not apply in habeas and that 28 U.S.C. § 2246 did not authorize discovery interrogatories.
Issues
- Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 (interrogatories) applies in federal habeas corpus proceedings involving a state prisoner.
- Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2246 authorizes interrogatories as a general discovery device in habeas proceedings.
- Whether, despite those limits, a federal habeas court has authority to permit interrogatories or other discovery tools to develop relevant facts, and the source of that authority.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- Rule 33 does not apply in habeas corpus proceedings because Rule 81(a)(2) excludes it.
- Section 2246 does not authorize interrogatories as a general discovery method; it permits them only in limited circumstances not present here.
- Even so, a district court has authority in proper circumstances to authorize interrogatories or other suitable discovery procedures to develop facts needed to decide the habeas petition.
Legal Principles
- The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically govern habeas practice; civil discovery provisions cannot be imported wholesale into habeas proceedings.
- 28 U.S.C. § 2246 is not a general habeas discovery statute; its use of affidavits, depositions, and interrogatories is limited and does not itself create broad discovery rights.
- A habeas court may authorize tailored discovery when reasonably necessary to elicit facts that enable the court to “dispose of the matter as law and justice require” under 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
- Where Congress has not provided comprehensive fact-development procedures for habeas cases, federal courts may fashion appropriate procedures by analogy to existing rules and judicial practice, with authority confirmed by the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
- Discovery in habeas is discretionary and case-specific, not an automatic entitlement.
Conclusion
The Court held that although civil interrogatory practice does not apply by rule and is not generally authorized by § 2246, federal habeas courts may, in appropriate circumstances, permit court-fashioned discovery—including interrogatories—when needed to develop facts and resolve the petition as “law and justice require,” supported by § 2243 and the All Writs Act.