Salter v. Rivard

Filing 19

ORDER Denying 15 17 Discovery Motions Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (Sian, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
REGINALD SALTER, #513005,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 13-cv-13961
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

STEVEN RIVARD,
Respondent.
__________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING DISCOVERY MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On September 16, 2013, Petitioner Reginald Salter, a state inmate, filed a pro se petition
for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is incarcerated in violation
of his constitutional rights. On December 22, 2015, Petitioner filed two motions for discovery.
The motions will be denied without prejudice.
Petitioner’s motions seek production of Detroit Police Department record retention
policies. He asserts that the existence of such policies will support his claim that the police failed
to preserve evidence of witnesses’ videotaped statements. Habeas Rule 6(a) permits district
courts to authorize discovery in habeas corpus proceedings “if and to the extent that, the judge in
the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so.” Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, R. 6(a). However, “habeas petitioners
have no right to automatic discovery.” Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001).
“Rule 6 embodies the principle that a court must provide discovery in a habeas proceeding only
‘where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the
facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.’” Williams v.

Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 975 (6th Cir. 2004), quoting Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09
(1997).
The problem for Petitioner is that in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011), the
Supreme Court held that where habeas claims have been decided on their merits in state court, a
federal court’s review under 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d)(1)—whether the state court
determination was contrary to or an unreasonable application of established federal law—must
be confined to the record that was before the state court. 563 U.S. at 181-82. Therefore, the Court
will deny Petitioner’s motions for discovery without prejudice. Petitioner may renew his motions
if any of his claims survive review under § 2254(d)(1).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for discovery, ECF Nos. 15 &
17, are DENIED without prejudice.

Dated: March 11, 2016

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on March 11, 2016.
s/Michael A. Sian
MICHAEL A. SIAN, Case Manager

-2-