Fields v. Hobbs

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion for Order; and granting in part and denying in part 16 and 17 Motions to Compel. The Respondent is directed to file with the Court and provide a copy to Petitioner the pleadings specified in its Order. All other requests are denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 06/10/2014. (kcs)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION MARCUS FIELDS ADC #150118 V. PETITIONER NO. 5:13CV00297 KGB/JTR RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER Petitioner has filed a “Motion for Transcripts and Evidentiary Records of All Plea Offers,” Doc. #13, and two “Motions to Compel,” Docs. #16 & #17. Respondent has filed a Response. Doc. #14. As set forth below, the Motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner asks the Court to subpoena or otherwise obtain the following: (1) The transcript of Petitioner’s jury trial in Sebastian County Circuit Court Case No. CR2011-29, which resulted in the conviction being challenged in this federal habeas action; (2) The “entire record” from Case No. CR2011-29, including: (a) A “plea hearing” held on September 9, 2011; (b) All “plea bargain offers” in the case; (3) The trial transcript from “CR2010-136"; (4) The “plea agreement and statement” from “CR2011-362"; and -1- (5) “Statements” and “polygraph results” from “Case 89-746.” The Court may, for “good cause,” authorize a party to conduct discovery in a federal habeas action, and may limit the extent of any discovery. Rule 6(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District Courts; see Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 909 (1977) (“good cause” requires a showing “that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is ... entitled to [habeas] relief.”). In addition, the Court may “direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials relating to the petition,” including transcripts of prior proceedings. § 2254 Rules 5(c) & 7. The Court agrees that the items requested by Petitioner regarding Case No.CR2011-29 are relevant to his federal habeas claims, and are necessary to full consideration of the issues presented by both parties.1 See Beck v. Bowersox, 257 F.3d 900, 901 (8th Cir. 2001) (§ 2254(d) requires “meaningful federal court review of the evidentiary record considered by the state courts”). However, at this time, he has not demonstrated that the remaining items are necessary for the Court’s review. Thus, on or before July 10, 2014, Respondent is directed to file with the Court, and provide a copy to Petitioner, the following: 1 Respondent’s Response refers to the trial transcript several times and states that, if requested by the Court, he will provide the two-volume trial record. Doc. #11, at 11 n.2. -2- (1) The record of Petitioner’s state court proceedings in Sebastian County Circuit Court Case No. CR2011-29, including the available transcripts of any pretrial proceedings and of his jury trial; (2) The Sebastian County Circuit Court docket sheet for Case No. CR201129; and (3) Evidence of any plea offers in Case No. CR2011-29. All other requests are denied. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motions, Docs. #13, #16 & #17, are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DATED THIS 10th DAY OF June, 2014. ____________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?