Opinion
CASE NO. 8:11-cv-840-T-23MAP
12-12-2012
TERRANCE PORTER, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, Department of Corrections, Respondent.
ORDER
Porter moves (Doc. 19 and 20) to expand the record under Rule 7, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 7 pre-dates the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Cullen v. Pinholster, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011), explains that the AEDPA restricts a federal court's review to the record that was before the state court:
We now hold that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Section 2254(d)(1) refers, in the past tense, to a state-court adjudication that "resulted in" a decision that was contrary to, or "involved" an unreasonable application of, established law. This backward-looking language requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time it was made. It follows that the record under review is limited to the record in existence at that same time i.e., the record before the state court.Instead of using Rule 7, a petitioner must meet the requirements under Section 2254(e)(2) to obtain an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Frazier v. Bouchard, 661 F.3d 519, 528 (11th Cir. 2011) (limiting review of a Section 2254 petition to the record that was before the state court and rejecting the district court's expanding the record under Rule 7) (citing Pinholster), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 410 (2012).
Accordingly, Porter's motions to expand the record (Doc. 19 and 20) are DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 12, 2012.
______________
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE