ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court are the following motions: (1) petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12); (2) respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14); (3) petitioner's motion for stay (ECF No. 20); (4) petitioner's motions for release from custody by "real estate equity in lieu of bail," (ECF Nos. 17 & 18); and (5) petitioner's motion for discovery (ECF No. 19).

Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner has paid a $5.00 filing fee but also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit (including copies of lodged documents, discussed below). Therefore, petitioner's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Petitioner's Motion to Stay

On December 28, 2018, respondent filed a motion to dismiss and submitted Lodged Document Nos. 1-7 with the court. ECF Nos. 14 & 16. In a "motion for stay," petitioner requests copies of the lodged documents before responding to the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 20. Good cause appearing, petitioner's request is granted and respondent shall serve the lodged documents on petitioner within 14 days.

Petitioner's Motion to Compel/Deposit

Petitioner also moves for an order that he be released from custody by "real estate equity in lieu of bail." ECF Nos. 17 & 18. Assuming such authority to release petitioner from state custody before even adjudicating his petition, the court does not find — at this stage in the proceedings — that release is appropriate. Therefore, petitioner's motions for release/bail are denied without prejudice.

Petitioner's Motion for Discovery

Petitioner has also filed a general motion for discovery, seeking among other documents, police reports, probation reports, sentencing transcripts and superior court minutes. ECF No. 19. Habeas petitioners are not entitled to discovery as a matter of course and, instead, may pursue discovery only upon a showing of good cause and in the discretion of the court. Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1999). The court concludes that petitioner has not shown good cause for discovery. First, a motion to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds is pending before the court. Resolution of that motion in favor of respondent would moot petitioner's need for discovery. Second, habeas petitioners should not be granted leave to engage in discovery as a "fishing expedition . . . to explore their case in search of its existence." Rich, 187 F.3d at 1067 (quoting Calderon v. U.S.D.C. (Nicolaus), 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996)). Here, petitioner has not identified any particular need for the requested discovery. Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied without prejudice. If this action proceeds beyond resolution of the motion to dismiss, and petitioner can demonstrate a need for the documents he may renew his request.

Order

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: