DECISION and ORDER

GARY L. SHARPE, Senior District Judge.

Petitioner Kasaad Dorsey filed a letter motion requesting discovery. Dkt. No. 21, Letter Motion. He seeks trial, sentencing, local court arraignment and preliminary hearing transcripts for his 2014 second degree assault conviction, arguing the transcripts will show: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) his motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) §330.30 was improperly denied; and (3) he was arraigned twice. Id. at 2. Respondent opposes the motion. Dkt. No. 22, Declaration in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Discovery; Dkt. No. 22-1, Exhibits.1 For the reasons that follow, petitioner's discovery request is denied.

Pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, a habeas court may order discovery where a party demonstrates good cause. See Rule 6, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997) (holding that petitioners in habeas proceedings are "not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course," but that discovery may be ordered pursuant to the discretion of the court and upon a showing of "good cause"). Good cause exists "`where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.'" Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 299 (1969)).

Petitioner failed to show that the transcripts he seeks would support his habeas petition or assist him in demonstrating entitlement to habeas relief. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904 (before deciding whether discovery should be allowed pursuant to Rule 6, the district court must identify the "`essential elements'" of the petitioner's habeas claims the requested discovery would support) (quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996)); see Toolasprashad v. Tyron, No. 1:12-CV-0734, 2013 WL 1560176 at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2013) (denying petitioner's motion for discovery because the documents responsive to the discovery demands "would not expose relevant evidence that would advance this habeas proceeding."). Petitioner is not challenging his 2014 assault conviction in this proceeding.2 Instead, he argues that the state courts improperly denied his applications for release on bail pending his direct appeals of both his 2014 assault conviction and his 2013 attempted third degree criminal possession of a controlled substance conviction. Dkt. Nos. 1, 1-2, Petitions. His discovery request is therefore denied.

Respondent answered petitioner's habeas petitions on October 27, 2015. Dkt. No. 14, Answer in Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; Dkt. No. 14-1, Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; Dkt. No. 15, State Court Records. On December 14, 2015, the Court received petitioner's reply with exhibits. Dkt. No. 20, A Traverse Reply to Answer in Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus; Dkt. No. 20-1, Exhibits. Should the Court determine that additional information or documents are necessary to decide the issues contained in the petition, the parties will be so notified.

Briefing in the case is now closed. The petition is under review and will be decided in due course. No further submissions will be accepted for filing without prior permission. Submissions received for filing without prior permission will be stricken from the docket.

WHEREFORE, it is

ORDERED that petitioner's motion for discovery (Dkt. No. 21) is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that briefing in the case is closed, and the petition is under review and will be decided in due course. No further submissions will be accepted for filing without prior permission. Submissions received for filing without prior permission will be stricken from the docket; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk send petitioner an updated docket sheet.

IT IS SO ORDERED.