Brown v. Jackson
Filing
20
ORDER denying 12 petitioner's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 13 Motion for Leave to conduct discovery; denying 14 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; denying 15 Motion for permission to submit interrogatories. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HENRY BROWN,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 17-cv-13817
Honorable George Caram Steeh
SHANE JACKSON,
Respondent.
________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY DISPOSITION [ECF NO. 12],
FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY [ECF NO. 13],
FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING [ECF NO. 14], AND FOR
PERMISSION TO SUBMIT INTERROGATORIES [ECF NO. 15]
I. Introduction
Petitioner Henry Brown, a state prisoner at the Carson City
Correctional Facility in Carson City, Michigan, seeks a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted of assault
with intent to commit murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.83, felon in
possession of a firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224f, and possession of
a firearm during the commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.227b.
-1
Petitioner alleges in his habeas corpus petition that: (1) his sentence
is cruel and unusual punishment; (2) the victim’s out-of-court statements
were inadmissible hearsay; (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his
convictions; (4) his trial and appellate attorneys were ineffective; and (5) the
prosecutor (a) failed to correct perjured testimony and (b) suppressed
exculpatory impeachment evidence. The State argues in an answer to the
habeas petition that:
(1) the state court reasonably applied clearly
established federal law when it adjudicated petitioner’s sentencing claim; (2)
petitioner’s evidentiary claim is not cognizable on habeas review, and his
claim under the Confrontation Clause is abandoned and meritless; (3) there
was sufficient evidence to convict petitioner; (4) petitioner has not proved the
factual predicate for his claim about trial counsel, and petitioner’s claim about
appellate counsel is procedurally defaulted and meritless; and (5) petitioner’s
prosecutorial-misconduct claim is procedurally defaulted and meritless.
Currently before the Court are petitioner’s motions for partial summary
disposition (ECF No. 12), for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 13), for
an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 14), and for leave to submit interrogatories
(ECF No. 15). The State opposes any requests for discovery or any other
relief.
-2
II. Analysis
A. The Motion for Partial Summary Disposition
Petitioner seeks summary disposition of his firearm convictions. He
claims that the State failed to prove he had constructive possession of the
weapon used in the crime.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine
issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c). When
the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, summary
judgment is warranted if the nonmovant fails to “make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to [its] case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In
determining whether a material factual dispute exists, the Court
views the evidence through the prism of the controlling legal
standard. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248,
106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Nebraska v. Wyoming, 507 U.S. 584, 590 (1993).
The relevant question on review of the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a criminal conviction is “is whether, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original).
Whether a defendant had constructive possession of a firearm is an issue of
fact for the trier of fact to decide. United States v. Zaleski, 686 F.3d 90, 93
-3
(2d Cir. 2012). Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to summary judgment as
a matter of law, and his motion for partial summary disposition (ECF No. 12)
is denied.
B. The Motions for Leave to Conduct Discovery and Submit
Interrogatories
Petitioner seeks permission to conduct discovery and to submit
interrogatories about his criminal case. His goal is to demonstrate that the
victim of his crimes was not shot in the chest and that she staged the crime
scene.
The Supreme Court has held that, “in appropriate circumstances, a
district court, confronted by a petition for habeas corpus which establishes a
prima facie case for relief, may use or authorize the use of suitable discovery
procedures, including interrogatories, reasonably fashioned to elicit facts
necessary to help the court to ‘dispose of the matter as law and justice
require.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2243.” Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290 (1969).
Habeas petitioners, however, are not entitled to discovery as a matter of
course. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). “Rule 6(a) [of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases] makes it clear that the scope and
-4
extent of such discovery is a matter confided to the discretion of the District
Court.” Id. at 909.
The evidence at trial established that petitioner shot the victim in the
chest, and the Michigan Court of Appeals described the evidence of
petitioner’s guilt as “overwhelming.” People v. Brown, No. 310156, 2013 WL
4487506, at *5 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2013). On habeas review, a court
does not sit to re-try state cases de novo; rather, the Court must review a
state-court case for violations of federal constitutional standards. Milton v.
Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377 (1972). Additionally, the Court may grant
habeas relief only if the state-court rulings in the case resulted in decisions
that were contrary to clearly established federal law,
unreasonable
applications
unreasonable
of
clearly
established
federal
law,
or
determinations of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
In the present case, the Court does not believe that any attempt to
discover additional facts about the victim’s injuries or the credibility of
witnesses is necessary to help the Court dispose of the issues as law and
justice require. The Court therefore denies petitioner’s motion for discovery
(ECF No. 13) and for permission to submit interrogatories (ECF No. 15).
-5
C. The Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing
Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing to develop the facts relevant to
his claims about the prosecutor and his trial and appellate attorneys. The
provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA) govern this case, and
AEDPA restricts the availability of federal evidentiary hearings.
See Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525, 539 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
(Martin, J., concurring in part). For a claim that was adjudicated
on the merits in a state court proceeding, sections 2254(d)(1) and
(d)(2) of AEDPA apply, and the district court is limited to the
record that was before the state court at the time. See [Cullen v.
Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181]; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 464 (6th Cir. 2012).
The Michigan Court of Appeals found no merit in petitioner’s claims
about trial counsel, and the State maintains that petitioner’s claims about the
prosecutor and appellate counsel are procedurally defaulted and meritless.
The Court, therefore, does not believe that an evidentiary hearing is
warranted.
Accordingly, the Court denies petitioner’s motion for an
evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 14).
III. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons given above, petitioner is not entitled to the relief he
seeks in his pending motions. Accordingly, the Court denies petitioner’s
motions for a partial summary disposition (ECF No. 12), for leave to conduct
-6
discovery (ECF No. 13), for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 14), and for leave
to submit interrogatories (ECF No. 15).
Dated: December 19, 2018
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
December 19, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and
also on Henry Brown #281484, Carson City Correctional
Facility, 10522 Boyer Road, Carson City, MI 48811.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk
-7
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?