Ryan v. Smith

Filing 26

ORDER denying 3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 7 Motion for Appointment of Essential Experts or Investigators ; denying 8 Motion to Stay; denying 9 Motion to Expand Existing Record ; denying 10 Motion Compel Discovery ; denying [ 11] Motion to Require State Of Michigan to Provide; granting 12 Motion to Transfer All Court Records; denying 13 Motion for Appointment of Magistrate Judge; denying 14 Motion for Bond. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. See Order for Details (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SEAN MICHAEL RYAN,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 14-11611
HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

v.
WILLIAM SMITH,
Respondent.
_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO TRANSFER ALL COURT RECORDS (ECF No. 12),
BUT DENYING PETITIONER’S OTHER MOTIONS AND REQUESTS
(ECF Nos. 3, 5-11, and 13-14)
Petitioner Sean Michael Ryan recently filed a pro se habeas corpus petition
challenging his Saginaw County convictions for seven counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(a). The state trial court sentenced
Petitioner to concurrent terms of twenty-five to fifty years in prison for six of the seven
counts and to a consecutive term of twenty-five to fifty years for the remaining count.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences in a
published decision, see People v. Ryan, 295 Mich. App. 388; 819 N.W.2d 55 (2012),
and on October 4, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because it
was not persuaded to review the issues presented to it. See People v. Ryan, 493 Mich.
865; 820 N.W.2d 918 (2012) (table).
Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment, which the trial
court denied. Petitioner appealed the trial court’s decision, but the Michigan Court of

Appeals denied his application for leave to appeal, and on February 28, 2014, the
Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because Petitioner failed to establish
entitlement to relief under Michigan Court Rule 6.508(D). See People v. Ryan, 495
Mich. 948; 843 N.W.2d 521 (2014) (table). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the
state supreme court’s decision is still pending before the Michigan Supreme Court.
On April 17, 2014, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition along with several
motions and requests. The habeas petition alleges that (1) the state courts deprived
Petitioner of due process by denying his requests for an evidentiary hearing, (2)
appellate counsel was ineffective, (3) trial counsel was ineffective, (4) the police delayed
Petitioner’s probable cause hearing to obtain additional information, (5) the prosecution
relied on perjured testimony, (6) the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence, (7)
the police destroyed or failed to preserve exculpatory evidence, (8) Petitioner was
arrested on less than probable cause, (9) the trial court erroneously admitted a
videotaped statement, (10) the cumulative effect of errors resulted in an unfair trial, (11)
Petitioner is actually innocent, and (12) “other issues properly ex[h]austed.”
Petitioner’s pending motions seek discovery, oral arguments and an evidentiary
hearing, transcripts, release on bond, a stay of these proceedings, and appointment of
counsel, an investigator, and a magistrate judge. The Court rules that:
•

the motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 3) is DENIED because “there is
no constitutional right to counsel in habeas proceedings,” Post v. Bradshaw, 422
F.3d 419, 425 (6th Cir. 2005), and the interests of justice do not require
appointment of counsel, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B);

•

the request for oral arguments on Petitioner’s motions (ECF. No. 5) is DENIED
because oral arguments are not necessary;
the request for oral arguments, appointment of counsel, and an evidentiary
hearing (ECF No. 6) is DENIED because oral arguments are unnecessary, the

•

2

interests of justice do not require appointment of counsel, and habeas corpus
“review under [28 U.S.C.] § 2254(d)(1) 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);
•

the motion for appointment of essential experts or investigators (ECF No. 7) is
DENIED because the scope and extent of discovery “is a matter confided to
the discretion of the District Court,” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 909
(1997), and because “the federal courts do not sit to re-try state cases de
novo but, rather, to review for violation of federal constitutional standards,”
Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377 (1972), and to determine whether the
state courts’ adjudication of the petitioner’s claims was contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent or an unreasonable
determination of the facts, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d);

•

the motion for a stay of these proceedings until the Michigan Supreme Court
decides Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 8) is DENIED because
the Court anticipates that the state supreme court will issue a decision on
Petitioner’s motion in a relatively short time;

•

the motion to expand the existing record (ECF No. 9) is DENIED because
Petitioner seeks to supplement the record created by the state court on his
motion to suppress evidence, and this Court is precluded from holding an
evidentiary hearing on an issue adjudicated on the merits by the state court,
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1398;

•

the motion to compel discovery of the victim’s school records, the report on the
sexual assault examination, and depositions (ECF No. 10) is DENIED without
prejudice pending receipt of the responsive pleading and the state court record;1

•

the motion to require the State of Michigan to provide Petitioner with all
transcripts, motions, and court records (ECF No. 11) is DENIED because
“a prisoner has no constitutional right to receive a free copy of trial
transcripts post-appeal,” United States v. Groce, 838 F. Supp. 411, 416
(E.D. Wis. 1993), and no absolute right to free copies of a transcript to
prepare a collateral attack on his conviction, United States v. MacCollom,
426 U.S. 317, 319 (1976); Smith v. United States, 421 F.2d 1300 (6th Cir.
1970);

•

the motion to transfer all court records (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED; in a future
1

The Court will re-consider the motion following its review of the responsive
pleading and state-court record. It will not be necessary for Petitioner to re-submit his
motion.
3

order, the Court will direct the State to file the relevant state court record
pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts;
•

the motion for appointment of a magistrate judge to decide nondispositive
motions (ECF No. 13) is DENIED as unnecessary; and

•

the motion for release on bond (ECF No. 14) is DENIED because Petitioner has
not persuaded the Court that there are “substantial questions” presented in his
application for the writ of habeas corpus and that some circumstance makes his
application “exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of
justice,” Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964)(citations omitted).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: May 13, 2014
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of
record and Sean Michael Ryan by electronic
means or U.S. Mail on May 13, 2014.
S/Carol A. Pinegar
Deputy Clerk

4