Maxey v. Rivard
SECOND ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF THE STATE COURT RECORD - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil No. 2:14-CV-12979
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SECOND ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF THE STATE COURT RECORD
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On September 9, 2014, the Court signed an order of responsive pleading requiring
respondent to file an answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the habeas corpus rules by
March 13, 2015. Respondent filed an answer to the petition on February 27, 2015.
Although respondent filed most of the Rule 5 materials, respondent failed to file the
preliminary examination transcript from May 20, 2009 and co-defendant Shron
Bennett’s guilty plea transcript from August 31, 2009. These materials are necessary
for resolving petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
The habeas corpus rules require respondents to attach the relevant portions of
the transcripts of the state court proceedings, if available, and the court may also order,
on its own motion, or upon the petitioner’s request, that further portions of the
transcripts be furnished. Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 653 (6th Cir. 2002); Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “When this information is
required, it is the State’s responsibility to provide it.” Griffin, 308 F.3d at 654. An
appropriate response to a habeas petition is an answer which responds to each
allegation contained in the petition and which attaches copies of the relevant judgment
of conviction, any available and relevant transcripts, and any post-conviction pleadings
and decisions. Chavez v. Morgan, 932 F. Supp. 1152, 1153 (E.D. Wis. 1996). Habeas
Rule 5 speaks in mandatory terms as to what must be attached to the respondent’s
answer. Flamer v. Chaffinch, 774 F. Supp. 211, 219 (D. Del. 1991). The general rule is
that a district court must review the entire state court trial transcript in federal habeas
cases, and where substantial portions of that transcript were omitted before the district
court, the habeas case should be remanded to the district court for consideration in light
of the full record. See Adams v. Holland, 330 F.3d 298, 406 (6th Cir. 2003). It is
reversible error for a district court to fail to review the transcripts upon which a habeas
petitioner’s claims are dependent. See Shaw v. Parker, 27 F.Appx. 448, 450 (6th Cir.
Based upon the foregoing, the court orders respondent to produce the
preliminary examination transcript from May 20, 2009 and the August 31, 2009
transcript of co-defendant Shron Bennett’s guilty plea within twenty one (21) days of
the date of this order or show cause why they are unable to comply with the order.
s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: January 3, 2017
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?