Jackson v. Berghuis

Filing 90

OPINION and ORDER Denying the 89 MOTION for Transcripts. Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TMcg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS JACKSON,
Petitioner,

Case No. 15-cv-11622

v.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

LES PARISH,
Respondent.
______________

/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS
[#89]
Petitioner Douglas Jackson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for three counts of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of assault with intent to do great
bodily harm, and one count of unlawful imprisonment. This Court held the petition
in abeyance and administratively closed the case to permit Petitioner to complete
state post-conviction proceedings in the state courts where he had attempted to
exhaust additional claims. Jackson v. Parish, No. 15-CV-11622, 2019 WL 4573799
(E.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2019).
Petitioner has filed a motion for the production of a transcript from a postconviction hearing from March 26, 2011 and a re-sentencing adjournment transcript
from August 24, 2011, which Petitioner argues may reveal that appellate counsel
1

was ineffective. Petitioner seeks these transcripts to assist him with his postconviction proceedings in the state court.
The Court will deny Petitioner’s motion for transcripts. First, as a general
rule, a criminal defendant has no federal constitutional right to a transcript to prepare
a post-conviction proceeding. Rickard v. Burton, 2 F. App’x 469, 470 (6th Cir.
2001) (citing to Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F. 2d 318, 319 (10th Cir. 1992)); see also
United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 325-26 (1976). “Possession of a
transcript is not a ‘condition precedent’ to the filing of a state post-conviction
motion.” Grayson v. Grayson, 185 F. Supp. 2d 747, 752 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (citing
to Gassler v. Bruton, 255 F. 3d 492, 495 (8th Cir. 2001)). Indeed, a defendant could
file a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court, after
which that trial court could order the production of the transcripts. Id. Petitioner, in
fact, has already filed a motion for relief from judgment and an amended motion for
relief from judgment, which are now pending in the state courts.
Moreover, a prisoner is not entitled to the preparation of a free transcript
merely for the purpose of searching it for grounds for a possible application for postconviction or habeas corpus relief. See Lucas v. United States, 423 F. 2d 683, 68485 (6th Cir. 1970); Watts v. State of Tenn., 603 F. Supp. 494, 495 (M.D. Tenn. 1984).
Petitioner is not entitled to a free transcript from these two hearings, because he has
failed to point to any specific need for the transcripts to prepare his post-conviction
2

motion. See Route v. Blackburn, 498 F. Supp. 875, 877 (M.D. La. 1980). In light
of the conclusory nature of Petitioner’s motion for the production of these transcripts
from his state criminal case, the motion for production of these transcripts and
documents is denied at this time. See Cassidy v. United States, 304 F. Supp. 864,
867 (E.D. Mo. 1969). The Court will reconsider Petitioner’s motion to compel the
State of Michigan to provide him with various legal materials if he can demonstrate
a specific need for the materials to prepare his motion for relief from judgment.
The motion for the production of transcripts [#89] will be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

November 14, 2019
s/Gershwin A. Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys
of record on this date, November 14, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Teresa McGovern
Case Manager

3