Crump v. BURT

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion for Order to the Trial Court to Produce and Furnish the Trial Transcripts and All Other Court Documents 12 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM CRUMP, JR.,
Case Number: 2:16-CV-13381
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

Petitioner,
v.
SHERRY L. BURT,
Respondent.
/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO
THE TRIAL COURT TO PRODUCE AND FURNISH THE TRIAL
TRANSCRIPTS AND ALL OTHER COURT DOCUMENTS
Petitioner William Crump, Jr., filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for three counts of third-degree criminal
sexual conduct, three counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, and one count of
accosting a child for an immoral purpose. Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion
for Order to the Trial Court to Produce and Furnish the Trial Transcripts and All Other
Court Documents. The Court denies the motion.
Petitioner seeks to have the Court compel the state court to provide him, free of
charge, copies of a vast array of documents related to his criminal proceeding, including:
all police reports, arrest warrants, warrant returns, all pretrial motions, motion hearing
transcripts, trial transcripts, judge’s notes, affidavits from all witnesses and witnesses not
called, and presentence reports. This Court has “no authority to ... direct state courts or
their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.” Haggard v. Tennessee, 421

F.2d 1384, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970). Petitioner also “does not enjoy an unfettered right to a
transcript at government expense to assist him in the preparation of a collateral attack on
the conviction.” United States v. Cook, 3 Fed. App’x 449, 451 (6th Cir. 2001), citing
United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1976)); see also Rickard v. Burton, 2
Fed. App’x 469, 470 (6th Cir. 2001) (finding no constitutional right to a transcript to
prepare for a post-conviction proceeding). Petitioner does not identify any specific needs
related to his request for these documents, other than the need to identify potential
constitutional deprivations. But a habeas petition is not the appropriate vehicle to use to
discover new claims. Aubut v. State of Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)
(“[h]abeas corpus is not a general form of relief for those who seek to explore their case
in search of its existence”). Petitioner filed a fifty-two page petition and over two
hundred pages of exhibits, many of which are excerpts of the state court record. He has
failed to show that he needs access to additional documents or pleadings to discover nonfrivolous issues or to support the issues already raised.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for Order to the Trial Court
to Produce and Furnish the Trial Transcripts and All Other Court Documents (ECF No.
12).

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: March 12, 2018

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on March 12, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3