Walker v. Winn
Filing
14
ORDER Denying 9 MOTION for Production of Police File. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DORIAN WALKER, #959129,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:18-CV-11141
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD
v.
THOMAS WINN,
Respondent.
____________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF POLICE FILE
Michigan prisoner Dorian Walker (“Petitioner”) has filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state criminal
proceedings. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for production
of the entire Detroit Police Department homicide file concerning his criminal case.
Under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Respondent is required to
submit all transcripts and documents relevant to the determination of the habeas
petition when the answer is filed. Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The Court may
require that the record be expanded to include additional relevant materials. Rule 7,
28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The Court may also determine whether an evidentiary hearing
is required after the answer and the state court record are filed. Rule 8, 28 U.S.C. foll.
§ 2254. Respondent has not yet filed an answer to the petition or the state court
record. Until those materials are filed, this Court need not require that additional
information be submitted for review. Petitioner’s request for discovery is premature.
“[A] habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not
entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S.
899, 904 (1997). A federal habeas court may authorize a party to conduct discovery
upon a showing of good cause. Rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Petitioner has not
shown that the information he seeks is necessary for the disposition of this case. He
has filed pleadings in support of his claims. The United States Supreme Court has
made clear that federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) 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). Petitioner is precluded
from injecting information that was not presented to the state courts into the present
proceeding. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion (Nos. 8, 9) without
prejudice. Should the Court determine, upon further review, that additional materials
are needed, it will enter an appropriate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District Court
Dated: December 11, 2018
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on December 11, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager
3
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?