Pearson v. Romanowski

Filing 4

ORDER denying 3 Motion for discovery; denying 2 Motion for evidentiary hearing. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (DTof)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JARED PEARSON,
Petitioner,
v.

Case Number 12-14816
Honorable David M. Lawson

KENNETH ROMANOWSKI,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
This matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing and motion
for discovery. The petitioner titled his first motion as a “motion to expand the record,” but in the
motion he asks the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing to develop certain facts and does not seek
to add any existing material to the record before the Court. The Court therefore will construe the
motion as a motion for an evidentiary hearing. In his second motion, the petitioner asks the Court
to allow him to serve requests for admission and document production on his trial counsel.
Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts states,
in pertinent part:
If the petition is not dismissed at a previous stage in the proceeding, the judge, after
the answer and the transcript and record of state court proceedings are filed, shall,
upon a review of those proceedings and of the expanded record, if any, determine
whether an evidentiary hearing is required.
The Court is not persuaded that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to adjudicate the claims in the
petition at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).
“Habeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery.” Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932,
974 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, Rule 6 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts permits a court to authorize discovery only
upon a showing of good cause. Id. “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.’ ” Id. (quoting Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997)). The petitioner
has not shown good cause to depart from the usual procedure disallowing discovery in habeas cases
and has not shown a need in ordering discovery beyond the Rule 5 materials.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing [dkt. #2]
is DENIED without prejudice.
It is further ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for discovery [dkt. # 3] is DENIED.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: November 1, 2012

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 November 1, 2012.
s/Deborah R. Tofil
DEBORAH R. TOFIL

-2-