King v. Booker

Filing 12

ORDER denying 4 Motion Access to Case Authorities; denying 8 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEENAN OMAR KING,
Case Number: 2:11-CV-13676

Petitioner,

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
RAYMOND BOOKER,
Respondent.
/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ACCESS TO
CASE AUTHORITIES AND MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Petitioner Keenan Omar King has filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §
2254, challenging his convictions for armed robbery, felony firearm, and unlawful
imprisonment. Now before the Court are Petitioner’s “Motion for Access to Case
Authorities Available Only in Electronic Databases (LEXIS & Westlaw) and Other
Access-Limited Publications” (Motion for Access) and “Motion For an Evidentiary
Hearing.”
In his Motion for Access, Petitioner asks the Court to issue an Order requiring
Respondent to provide him with copies of any unpublished opinions or any published
cases unavailable in the prison library cited in his Answer to the petition.1 When an
incarcerated pro se litigant like Petitioner lacks access to cases relied upon by a court’s

1

Petitioner notes that the prison law library does not include volumes of the Supreme
Court Reporter, Federal Reporter, or Federal Supplement issued prior to 1970. Additionally, the
law library does not contain Michigan reporters prior to 1986.

decision or the State’s opposition, the litigant’s opportunities to understand and assert his
legal rights may be impacted. See Davis v. Lafler, 692 F. Supp.2d 705, 706 (E.D.
Mich.2009) (quoting Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76, 78 (2nd Cir. 2009)). Respondent
has now filed an answer to the petition. It appears Respondent cites no case law or other
materials inaccessible to Petitioner. Therefore, the Court will deny the motion as moot.
Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion For An Evidentiary Hearing.
Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing to develop facts to support his ineffective
assistance of counsel claims. The Supreme Court recently held that, when a petitioner
seeks habeas relief on a claim that has been “adjudicated on the merits in state court
proceedings,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), federal court review “is limited to the record that
was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Cullen v. Pinholster,
__ U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011). If a petitioner raises a claim not adjudicated on
the merits by the state courts, the federal court has discretion to consider new evidence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Id. at 1401. Section 2254(e)(2) bars a federal court from
holding an evidentiary hearing unless the petitioner satisfies certain statutory
requirements.
In this case, the state court, on collateral review, clearly adjudicated the ineffective
assistance of counsel claims on the merits. Petitioner seeks relief under § 2254(d)(1),
arguing that the state court’s adjudication was an unreasonable application of clearly
established Federal law. “[E]vidence introduced in federal court has no bearing on §
2254(d)(1) review.” Id. at 1400. Thus, under Pinholster, the Court’s review is confined
2

to the record before the state courts and the Court denies the request for an evidentiary
hearing. Id. at 1398.
The Court DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s “Motion for Access to Case
Authorities Available Only in Electronic Databases (LEXIS & Westlaw) and Other
Access-Limited Publications,” and DENIES Petitioner’s “Motion For An Evidentiary
Hearing.”
SO ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: August 21, 2012
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Keenan Omar King by electronic means or
U.S. Mail on August 21, 2012.
s/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk

3