United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
MICHAEL T. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's Motions ,
, , , , . Having considered the motions
and the applicable law, the Court finds that the Motions
, , , , ,  should be denied.
February 4, 2019, Petitioner filed his Motion  for an
Extension of Time to Complete Service of Summons. The record
reflects that Respondents were served on December 3, 2018 and
filed a responsive pleading on December 26, 2018.
See Acknowledgement of Service ; Mot. .
Petitioner's concerns regarding the cost of service or
additional time to serve Respondents is moot.
February 19, 2019 Petitioner filed his Motion  to Compel
to have the expense of “Summons Service” shifted
to Respondents. He further seeks an extension of time to
serve the Respondent. As discussed above, Respondents have
been served and appeared in this action. Any relief
Petitioner seeks regarding service of summons is moot.
further moves  to compel a list of individuals to answer
certain questions he has sent them in the mail and to comply
with waiver of services of summons. Discovery is not
necessary at this time. The Court must first consider
Respondent's Motion to Dismiss  and an evidentiary
hearing is not appropriate before the current dispositive
motion is decided. Petitioner's request to compel
discovery from other individuals should be denied.
March 7, 2019, Petitioner filed his Motion  to Compel.
The Motion  is a verbatim copy Petitioner's
previously filed Motion  to Compel. For the reasons
explained above, the Motion  to Compel should be denied.
April 1, 2019, Petitioner filed his Motion  for
Discovery. The Motion  appears to consist of
interrogatories and requests for production directed at
Respondents but does not explain why Petitioner is entitled
to any discovery. Rule 6(b) governing § 2254 cases
states “[a] party requesting discovery must provide
reasons for the request.” The Fifth Circuit has held
that “a petitioner's factual allegations must be
specific, as opposed to merely speculative or conclusory, to
justify discovery under Rule 6.” Murphy v.
Johnson, 205 F.3d 809, 814 (5th Cir. 2000). Petitioner
has not explained why he needs this discovery and an
evidentiary hearing is not necessary at this time as the
Court will first consider Respondent's Motion to Dismiss
 on the parties' written submissions alone. The
Motion  for discovery, therefore, should be denied.
April 5, 2019, Petitioner filed his Motion  for
“Compel and Comply.” First, Petitioner requests
that the Court deny Respondent's motion relating to
service of summons. The Court cannot discern what motion
Petitioner is referencing. To the extent Petitioner is
reasserting his previous motions to serve Respondents and
shift the cost of service, the Motion  should be denied.
Petitioner seeks an order from this Court compelling his
“chief-witnesses” to respond to the documents he
has previously sent them and to comply with any future
hearings or yet-to-be-issued subpoenas. As considered
previously in Petitioner's Motion  for Discovery,
Petitioner is not entitled to discovery at this time and has