Young v. Curtin

Filing 28

OPINION AND ORDER denying Petitioner's 26 Motion Produce Additional Rule 5 Materials. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROGER YOUNG,
Case Number: 2:09-CV-11063
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

Petitioner,
v.
CINDI CURTIN,
Respondent.
/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL RULE 5 MATERIALS
Petitioner Roger Young, a state inmate presently incarcerated at the Richard A.
Handlon Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his first-degree criminal sexual conduct
conviction, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520(b), imposed by a Wayne County, Michigan
circuit court jury.
Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Produce Additional Rule 5
Materials. Rules 5(c) and (d), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, requires the
respondent to file a copy of any prior decisions, pleadings, briefs, and transcripts relevant
to the issues presented in a habeas petition. Petitioner claims that Respondent failed to
file these relevant documents: a handwritten letter from Petitioner to the victim that was
admitted into evidence at trial (both the redacted and unredacted versions) and an
audiocassette that was not admitted into evidence at trial. With regard to the letter, the

victim read the redacted version of the letter into the record. Petitioner does not claim
that she did so inaccurately or that it was transcribed incorrectly. Further, he asserts no
reason why an unredacted version of the letter is relevant. The Court finds no need for
production of either the redacted or unredacted letter. Accord Hernandez v. McDaniel,
No. 3:09-CV-00545, 2009 WL 4953384, *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 14, 2009) (“Nowhere under
the habeas rules are the respondents required to produce trial exhibits ... used in state
court proceedings.”).
Petitioner requests production of an audiotape that was referenced at trial outside
the presence of the jury. The audiotape was never played for the judge or jury, nor was it
admitted into evidence. Habeas review is “limited to the record that was before the state
court.” Cullen v. Pinholster, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011). The language of
the statute is “backward-looking” and “requires an examination of the state-court decision
at the time it was made. Id.” The audiotape was not part of the state court record.
Therefore, the Court may not consider it in adjudicating the habeas petition.
The Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to Produce Additional Rule 5 Materials
(Dkt. #26).
SO ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 8, 2015

2