ORDER

TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on movant Kenyatta Sykes's pro se motion for production of case documents in the instant case, in which Mr. Sykes is not a defendant. [DE 79]. The government has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [DE 81]. Mr. Sykes argues that he is entitled to the production of certain reports and interview transcripts of defendant Antonio Nicholson and other corroborating witnesses pursuant to the Supreme Court's holding in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), in order to challenge his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Mr. Sykes argues that he is seeking to prove his actual innocence, and information from Mr. Nicholson's criminal case will demonstrate that Mr. Nicholson never implicated Mr. Sykes in a criminal drug conspiracy. Mr. Sykes is outside of the limitations period for filing an appeal or motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and he has already filed one unsuccessful motion under that section. See generally United States v. Kenyatta Sykes, No. 4:09-CR-15-F (E.D.N.C). He argues, however, that information from Mr. Nicholson's case will provide him with the facts necessary to receive permission to file a second or successive habeas petition.

Generally, habeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rather, they must comply with Rule 6(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 and 2255 Cases and "provide reasons for the request." Specifically, a habeas petitioner must provide a particularized need for the documents he is requesting in order to establish good cause. Jones v. Superintendent, Virginia State Farm, 460 F.2d 150, 153 (4th Cir. 1972); R. 6(a) Fed R. Gov. § 2255 Proceedings. Mr. Sykes, however, seeks the document not as part of a current § 2255 proceeding, but to request authorization to file a second § 2255. See, e.g., United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003) ("[A] prisoner seeking to file a successive [§ 2255] application in the district court must first obtain authorization from the appropriate court of appeals."). The court of appeals considers whether the application contains, inter alia, "newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense." § 2255(h).

Mr. Sykes's motion is premature. He can raise his allegations of newly discovered evidence in a petition to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file a second or successive petition. If the Fourth Circuit determines that his alleged newly discovered evidence would satisfy the burden of § 2255(h)(2), he may then request discovery necessary to his § 2255 motion, but he has not demonstrated a particularized need for the requested documents at this stage. Accordingly, the government's motion to dismiss [DE 81] is GRANTED and defendant's motion [DE 79] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.