Keil v. Hanson

Filing 12

ORDER & REASONS: ORDERED that 11 Motion to Order the Entire Appellate Record and Motion for Oral Argument is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (cml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CURTIS ANTIONE KEIL

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-0422

RAY HANSON

SECTION “I”(4)

ORDER AND REASONS
The petitioner, Curtis Antione Keil, has filed a “Motion to Order the Entire Appellate
Record and Motion for Oral Argument” (Rec. Doc. No. 11) seeking an order for the production
of the entire state appellate record and for oral argument on his petition for issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Keil’s motion is unnecessary and otherwise premature
at this time.
Upon the filing of Keil’s petition, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued an order directed
to the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office and the District Attorney for Washington Parish to
respond to Keil’s petition. As part of this order, the respondents are required to provide a certified
copy of the state court records, which includes all pretrial, trial and post-conviction records from the
state trial court, the state appellate court, and the Louisiana Supreme Court. In this regard, Keil’s
request is repetitive of matters already ordered by the Court and must be denied.
In addition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), the decision of whether to hold an
evidentiary hearing, or oral argument as Keil refers to it, is a statutorily mandated determination
limited by the provisions of § 2254(e)(2), Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1400-01 (2011),
which provides as follows:
(2)
If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court
proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim unless the
applicant shows that-(A)
the claim relies on--

(i)
a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable; or
(ii)
a factual predicate that could not have been previously discovered
through the exercise of due diligence; and
(B)
the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would
have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.
Keil has not met this burden or presented any basis in his motion for this Court to hold an
evidentiary hearing. He also has not alleged or shown that the state court records will be insufficient
to address the claims raised without an evidentiary hearing. Furthermore, this Court’s review is
directed to and limited by the matters considered by the state courts. See Cullen, 131 S. Ct. at 1400;
Blue v. Thaler, 665 F.3d 647, 656 (5th Cir. 2011). The State has not had an opportunity to respond
to his petition in this court, including presentation of any potential defenses to review of Keil’s
claims raised here. The Court will have ample opportunity to review the state’s response and the
record to determine whether any additional briefing or argument is required. At this point in the
proceedings, however, the record does not demonstrate a need for an evidentiary hearing and Keil
has failed to meet the heavy burden of proving his entitlement to one. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Keil’s “Motion to Order the Entire Appellate Record and Motion
for Oral Argument” (Rec. Doc. No. 11) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 3rd day of March, 2015.

____________________________________
KAREN WELLS ROBY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2