Opinion
Case No. 1:13-cv-648
08-15-2014
NORMAN HOLMES, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
Dlott, J.
ORDER
Petitioner, an inmate in state custody at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on petitioner's motion to file a reply to respondent's reply to petitioner's traverse (Doc 13), petitioner's motion to furnish documents (Doc. 14), respondent's memorandum in opposition (Doc. 15), and petitioner's reply memorandum (Doc. 16).
Petitioner's motion to file a reply to respondent's reply to petitioner's traverse (Doc. 13) is GRANTED.
In his motion to furnish documents, which is opposed (see Doc. 15), petitioner requests that respondent furnish security footage of the incident giving rise to his robbery conviction and sentence. (Doc. 14). Petitioner contends that he was denied the opportunity to present exculpatory evidence at trial—evidence that he claims "will disclose his actual innocence or could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict." (Id. at 4 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). According to petitioner, under Rule 6(A) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, he may seek discovery in order to develop claims properly before the Court, to obtain a factual basis on which to excuse a procedural default, or to determine whether to request an evidentiary hearing. Id. On this basis he requests that respondent furnish video surveillance and photos of the incident.
Unlike the typical civil litigant, a habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a matter of course. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); see also Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001). Discovery is available only at the discretion of the court and for good cause shown. Rule 6(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Habeas Rule 6 embodies the principle that a court must provide discovery in a habeas proceeding only "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, 300 (1969)); see also Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 974 (6th Cir. 2004). "The burden of demonstrating the materiality of the information requested is on the moving party." Williams, 380 F.3d at 974 (quoting Stanford, 266 F.3d at 460).
In this case, petitioner fails to demonstrate good cause for his discovery request. This Court is not permitted to consider evidence outside the state-court record in assessing, under the applicable the standard of review set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), whether the state courts' rulings were contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly-established Supreme Court precedents, or were based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011); see also Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 464 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 141 (2012); Robinson v. Howes, 663 F.3d 819, 823 (6th Cir. 2011); Sheppard v. Bagley, 657 F.3d 338, 343-44 (6th Cir. 2011). Cf. Barton v. Warden, Southern Ohio Corr. Facility, No. 1:09cv353, 2011 WL 2293225, at *4-5 (S.D. Ohio June 8, 2011) (Merz, M.J.) (vacating order granting an evidentiary hearing in a § 2254 habeas case in light of Pinholster). Because "evidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on § 2254(d)(1) review," Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. at 1400, the requested surveillance footage—which was not made part of the state-court record—would be of no assistance to petitioner in developing the claims before this Court. Accordingly, petitioner's motion to furnish documents (Doc. 14) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 8/15/14
/s/_________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge