Beauclair v. Goddard et al

Filing 31

ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 27 for reconsideration is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 3/6/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Danny E. Beauclair by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DANNY E. BEAUCLAIR,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 10-3128-SAC

JOHNNIE GODDARD, et al.,
Respondents.

O R D E R
Petitioner proceeds pro se in this matter, seeking habeas
corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

In May 2011, the court

granted petitioner’s request for additional time to file a traverse,
and denied petitioner’s “Motion for Lodgment” which the court
construed as petitioner’s request for a copy of the state court
record submitted by respondents in conjunction with their filing of
an answer and return.
Petitioner thereafter timely filed an extensive traverse.
Before the court is petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s denial of petitioner’s Motion for Lodgment.
A motion for reconsideration must be based on an intervening
change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the
need

to

correct

D.Kan.Rule 7.3(b).

clear

error

or

prevent

manifest

injustice.

Petitioner’s motion advances none of these

grounds.
Instead, petitioner cites additional authority for his request

for a copy of the state court records submitted for the court’s
consideration in deciding petitioner’s application for federal
habeas corpus relief.

This cited authority does not convince the

court that reconsideration would be warranted.
Petitioner argues he is entitled to a copy of the state court
record because it is part of respondents’ answer, and cites a Fourth
Circuit decision examining federal civil and habeas rules to find
service of a habeas corpus answer on the habeas petitioner, complete
with the answer’s exhibits, was required.1
More persuasive, however, are court decisions that have applied
the holding in Thompson in a more limited fashion to require service
on petitioner only of particular exhibits actually attached to the
answer,2 and/or that have denied requests for service on petitioner
of the state court record where petitioner demonstrated no need for
them.3
Here, petitioner’s request for a copy of the state court record
rests only on an argument that he is entitled under federal civil
and habeas rules to service of that record as part of respondents’

1

See
Thompson
v.
Greene,
427
F.3d
263,
270
(4th
Cir.2005)(citing Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
and Rules 5(a) and 10(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure);
Harms v. Quarterman, 2007 WL 950394 (S.D.Tex. March 26, 2007)(citing
and following Thompson); Pindate v. Nunn 248 F.Supp.2d 361
(D.N.J.2003)(same).
2

See Sixta v. Thaler, 615 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2010)(separately
submitted state court records cited in respondents’ answer were not
exhibits attached thereto).
3

See e.g. Foss v. Martel, 2011 WL 2414512 (E.D.Cal. June 10,
2011); Norris v. Crosby, 2007 WL 122822 (M.D.Fla. Jan. 12, 2007).
2

answer.

Petitioner does not proceed in forma pauperis in this

matter, has not demonstrated any specific need for copies of the
state court record in part or in whole, and has not pursued
discovery as provided under habeas rules.
Governing

Section

2254

Cases

(party

See Rule 6 of the Rules

requesting

discovery

must

“provide reasons for the request” and demonstrate “good cause” for
the discovery).

Nor has petitioner requested copies of the state

court record at his own expense.

The court also notes that

petitioner filed a traverse in this matter that clearly demonstrates
petitioner’s significant command of litigation related to the state
conviction being challenged.

The court thus denies petitioner’s

motion for reconsideration.
IT

IS

THEREFORE

ORDERED

that

petitioner’s

motion

reconsideration (Doc. 27) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 7th day of March 2012 at Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

3

for