Ward v. Wolfenbarger
Filing
198
OPINION AND ORDER granting 195 Motion for Discovery and Denying the Motion to Transfer Petitioner. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL CHARLES WARD,
Petitioner,
Civil Nos. 03-CV-72701/72858-DT
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
v.
HUGH WOLFENBARGER,
Respondent,
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND
DENYING THE MOTION TO TRANSFER PETITIONER
On July 14, 2014, this case was remanded by the United States Court of
Appeals from the Sixth Circuit for a determination of whether petitioner’s 1971
convictions, which this Court had ordered expunged, were still being used by the
Michigan Department of Corrections (M.D.O.C.) to classify petitioner and to
determine his parole eligibility on his 1981 conviction. On July 18, 2014, the
Federal Defender Office was appointed to represent petitioner and briefing
deadlines were set.
Petitioner’s counsel filed a motion for an order compelling the production of
parole board documents. Petitioner also requests that petitioner be transferred
from the Oaks Correctional Facility to a facility closer to his counsel in Detroit,
Michigan. For the reasons that follow, the motion for discovery is granted. The
1
Ward v. Wolfenbarger, No. 03-72701/03-72858
motion for a transfer order is denied without prejudice. 1
Petitioner requests an order from the Court requiring the M.D.O.C. to turn
over all parole board and other correctional records pertaining to petitioner so that
counsel can determine whether petitioner’s expunged 1971 convictions are being
used to either classify petitioner or determine his parole eligibility. On November
13, 2015, petitioner’s counsel received 6,632 pages of material from the
M.D.O.C. The M.D.O.C., however, refused to turn over certain documents which
they claim are exempt from disclosure under Michigan law.
“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant, is not entitled to
discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904
(1997). Instead, a habeas petitioner is entitled to discovery only if the district
judge “in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave” to
conduct discovery. Rule 6 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. To establish “good cause” for discovery, a
habeas petitioner must establish that the requested discovery will develop facts
which will enable him or her to demonstrate that he or she is entitled to habeas
relief. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09. The burden is on the petitioner to establish
the materiality of the requested discovery. See Stanford v. Parker, 266 F. 3d 442,
1
Petitioner also requested an extension of time to file a supplemental
brief, which the respondent did not oppose. This Court granted the parties an
extension of time in a separate order on November 24, 2015.
2
Ward v. Wolfenbarger, No. 03-72701/03-72858
460 (6th Cir. 2001).
A federal district court may permit discovery in a habeas case if the
petitioner presents specific allegations which give the court reason to believe that
the facts, if fully developed, may lead the district court to believe that federal
habeas relief is appropriate. See Johnson v. Mitchell, 585 F.3d 923, 934 (6th Cir.
2009); See also Lott v. Coyle, 261 F.3d 594, 602 (6th Cir. 2001). However, Rule 6
of the Habeas Rules does not “sanction fishing expeditions based on a
petitioner’s conclusory allegations.” Williams v. Bagley, 380 F. 3d 932, 974 (6th
Cir. 2004)(internal quotation omitted). A habeas petitioner’s conclusory
allegations are insufficient to warrant discovery under Rule 6. Id. Instead, the
petitioner must set forth specific allegations of fact. Id.
To the extent that petitioner’s motion requests the information that he has
already received, the Court denies it as moot because the M.D.O.C. has
complied with this portion of his discovery request. See e.g. Al-Qahtani v.
Obama, 604 F. Supp. 2d 101, 103 (D.D.C. 2009). The M.D.O.C., however,
refused to turn over certain information which they claim is exempt under state
law from disclosure. These documents, however, may contain information that
establishes whether or not the M.D.O.C. has complied with this Court’s order to
expunge petitioner’s 1971 convictions. Because this information may contain
relevant information for this Court to fully adjudicate petitioner’s claim, the Court
3
Ward v. Wolfenbarger, No. 03-72701/03-72858
orders respondent to provide this information to petitioner within 14 days of the
order. 2
To the extent that petitioner requests an order of discovery on additional
records that the M.D.O.C. has not provided or already discovered, the Court
denies the request at this time because there is no showing that such additional
documents exist. Although the M.D.O.C. initially estimated that petitioner’s files
contained 10-15,000 pages, they ultimately indicated that there were only about
6,632 pages of documents, plus the information that they claim is exempted from
disclosure. Petitioner’s mere speculation that the M.D.O.C. may contain
additional information would not entitle him to discovery. See Strickler v. Greene,
527 U.S. 263, 286 (1999); See also Lott v. Coyle, 261 F. 3d at 604 (petitioner not
entitled to discovery of police files where police department denied they had the
requested documents). Petitioner is free to renew his discovery request if he
later determines from a review of the discovery provided that additional records
exist in the M.D.O.C. file which have not been provided.
Petitioner has also filed a motion to be transferred back to a prison that is
located in the Eastern District of Michigan.
Fed. R.App. P. 23(a) states:
2
Respondent, of course, is free to redact the telephone numbers, home
addresses, and personnel records of all M.D.O.C. personnel from these records.
4
Ward v. Wolfenbarger, No. 03-72701/03-72858
“Transfer of Custody Pending Review. Pending review of a decision
in a habeas corpus proceeding commenced before a court, justice,
or judge of the United States for the release of a prisoner, the person
having custody of the prisoner must not transfer custody to another
unless a transfer is directed in accordance with this rule. When,
upon application, a custodian shows the need for a transfer, the
court, justice, or judge rendering the decision under review may
authorize the transfer and substitute the successor custodian as a
party.”
Relief for a violation of Fed.R.App. P. 23(a), however, is available only if a
habeas petitioner establishes that a transfer resulted in prejudice to the
prosecution of a pending habeas action. See Shabazz v. Carroll, 814 F. 2d 1321,
1324 (9th Cir. 1987), vacated in part on other grounds, 833 F. 2d 149 (9th Cir.
1987); Hammer v. Meachum, 691 F. 2d 958, 961 (10th Cir. 1982). In addition, a
habeas petitioner who opposes transfer must establish that “the transfer would
deprive the court of jurisdiction or substantially complicate the conduct of the
litigation.” See Strachan v. Army Clemency Parole Bd., 151 F. 3d 1308, 1313
(10th Cir. 1998)(quoting Ward v. United States Parole Comm'n, 804 F. 2d 64, 66
(7th Cir. 1986)).
The Court will deny the motion to transfer, because petitioner has failed to
show that his transfer to a prison in the Western District of Michigan has deprived
this Court of jurisdiction over his case or has otherwise prejudiced him. Although
counsel notes that the Oaks Correctional Facility is four hours from their offices in
Detroit, counsel has not shown that it would be impossible for them to make the
5
Ward v. Wolfenbarger, No. 03-72701/03-72858
trip to Manistee, Michigan to confer with petitioner or that there are not other
means for them to communicate with him. The motion is denied without prejudice
to counsel re-filing the motion should the distance become a hardship.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for discovery
[Dkt. # 195] is GRANTED. Respondent has fourteen days from the date of this
order to turn over the exempted information to petitioner’s counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for transfer is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: December 7, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon
parties/counsel of record on December 7, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary
mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant
6
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?