Williams v. Butler

Filing 73

ORDER DENYING 57 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court by Bobby O Williams and AFFIRMING Magistrate Judge Proud's 51 Order on Motion and 52 Order on Motion to Produce. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/22/16. (lmp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BOBBY O. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
Case No. 15-CV-00457-DRH-CJP

vs.
KIMBERLY BUTLER

W arden of Menard CC
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s appeal of a magistrate
decision (Doc. 57). Petitioner Bobby O. Williams seeks to appeal the April 13,
2016 Order issued by Magistrate Judge Proud denying his motion to produce
(Doc. 51). Respondent filed a response opposing the appeal (Doc. 66). Based on
the following, the Court affirms Magistrate Judge Proud’s April 13, 2016 Order
and denies plaintiff’s appeal.
Local Rule 73.1(a) of the Southern District of Illinois provides:
(a)

Appeal of Non-Dispositive Matters - 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
Any party may appeal a Magistrate Judge’s order determining
a motion or matter within 14 days after issuance of the
Magistrate Judge’s order, unless a different time is prescribed
by the Magistrate Judge or a District Judge. The party shall file
with the Clerk of Court and serve on all parties a written
request for an appeal which shall specifically designate the
order or part of the order that the parties wish the Court to
reconsider. A District Judge shall reconsider the matter and
shall set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order
found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A District
Page 1 of 4

Judge may also reconsider sua sponte any matter determined
by a Magistrate Judge under this rule.
Also, under FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 72(a), the Court may modify
or reverse a magistrate judge on a non-dispostive issue upon a showing that the
magistrate judge’s decision is “clearly erroneous or contrary to the law.”
Specifically, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides:
Nondispositive Matters. When a pretrial matter not dispositive
of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to
hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct
the required proceedings, and when appropriate, issue a written
order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections
to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A
party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely
objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely
objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is
clearly erroneous or is contrary to the law.
A finding is clearly erroneous when “the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (quoting

United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)); Weeks v.
Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 1997).
In applying this “clear error” standard, a district judge may overturn a
decision “only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co. Ltd., 126 F.3d
926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997). District Courts are given broad discretion on matters
related to discovery. Weeks, 126 F.3d at 943. If there are two permissible views,
the reviewing court will not overturn the decision solely because it would have

Page 2 of 4

chosen the other. The clear error standard requires more than mere
disagreement.
Accordingly, the Court will affirm Judge Proud’s decision unless his factual
findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); S.D. Ill. Local Rule 73.1(a). The
Court finds that petitioner has not established that Judge Proud’s order related to
discovery was clearly erroneous or contrary to the law in this case.
Here, Petitioner Williams filed a motion requesting transcripts of various
hearings from proceedings distinct from his criminal prosecution in People v.

Williams, 737 N.E.2d 230 (Ill. 2000). In People v. Williams, which is the subject of
the pending 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, a jury found petitioner guilty of first degree
murder for the murder of Sharon Bushong. In the pending § 2254 petition,
petitioner alleges that the state court judge who sentenced him made statements
that show he was biased against petitioner, and he requests specific documents to
help support his claim. However, this Court agrees with Judge Proud and finds
that petitioner has not shown good cause for his proposed discovery given the
claims raised in the pending § 2254 petition.
In the motion at issue on appeal, petitioner specifically requested the
production of (1) transcripts, pleadings, and an eavesdropping recording in the
petitioner’s trials for the murder of Carlos Robinson (St. Clair County, Illinois,
Case No. 95-CF-203), and unlawful possession of weapons (St. Clair County,
Illinois, Case No. 95-CF-104); and (2) transcripts from a motion to suppress

Page 3 of 4

hearing in the trial of Gerald Simpson for the murder of Sharon Bushong (St.
Clair County, Case No. 94 CF 953)(Docs. 39-40). These cases were separate and
distinct from the state court judgment entered against petitioner that is at issue in
his pending § 2254 petition. Additionally, petitioner admitted that none of the
documents he requests were filed in his state court case (Doc. 51).
As Judge Proud correctly stated, this Court’s review is limited to the
record that was before the state court in the petitioner’s case. Cullen v. Pinholster,
131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398-1399 (2011). Evidence from a different case, which was
not before the state court in petitioner’s case, cannot be considered here. See e.g.,

Carter v. Duncan, 819 F.3d 931 (7th Cir. 2016), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en
banc denied (May 31, 2016). Therefore, based on the law of this Circuit, it is clear
that good cause has not been shown to warrant reversal of Judge Proud’s Order.
Petitioner failed to show that Judge Proud’s decision was clearly erroneous or
contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES petitioner’s appeal and AFFIRMS
Magistrate Judge Proud’s Orders (Docs. 51& 52).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 21st day of June, 2016.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2016.06.21
16:22:35 -05'00'
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4