Lyons-Bey v. Campbell

Filing 36

OPINION AND ORDER denying 33 Motion to Expedite; denying 34 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 35 Motion to Strike; denying 24 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 25 Motion; denying 30 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing; denying 31 Motion. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID MAURICE LYONS-BEY,
Case No. 5:16-CV-13797
HON. JOHN CORBETT O’MEARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Petitioner,
v.
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent,
_______________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (Dkts. # 24, 34), THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS (Dkt. # 25), THE RENEWED MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING, FOR DISCOVERY, AND FOR RELEASE ON BOND (Dkt. # 30), THE
MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, (Dkt. # 31), THE MOTION TO EXPEDITE
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Dkt. # 33), AND THE
MOTION TO STRIKE THE ANSWER (Dkt. # 35).
David Maurice Lyons-Bey, (“petitioner), filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has filed a number of motions. For the reasons that
follow, the motions are DENIED.
1. The motions for summary judgment and the motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
Petitioner filed two motions for summary judgment and a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
1

as a matter of law.” Sanders v. Freeman, 221 F. 3d 846, 851 (6th Cir. 2000)(quoting Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 56(c)). The summary judgment rule applies to habeas proceedings. Harris v.
Stegall, 157 F. Supp. 2d 743, 746 (E.D. Mich. 2001)(citing to Hauck v. Mills, 941 F. Supp.
683, 686-687 (M.D. Tenn. 1996)). However, a federal district court should not enter a
summary judgment in a habeas case if the pleadings or papers present a genuine issue of fact.
United States ex. rel. Johnson v. De Robertis, 718 F. 2d 209, 211 (7th Cir. 1983).
In this case, respondent has filed an answer to petitioner’s application for a writ of
habeas corpus, in which he argues that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. The Court
cannot conclude at this time that there is no genuine issue of material fact.
To the extent that petitioner is asking the Court to enter a default judgment based upon
respondent’s failure to file a timely answer, this Court is without power to grant petitioner
a default judgment in this case, because a default judgment is unavailable in a habeas corpus
proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the ground that state officials failed to file a timely
response to the petition. Allen v. Perini, 424 F. 2d 134, 138 (6th Cir. 1970); Whitfield v.
Martin, 157 F. Supp. 2d 758, 761 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The motions are denied.
2. The renewed motion for an evidentiary hearing, for discovery, and for bond.
Petitioner filed a renewed motion for an evidentiary hearing, for discovery, and for
release on bond.
If a habeas petition is not dismissed at a previous stage in the proceeding, the judge,
after the answer and the transcript and record of state court proceedings are filed, shall, upon
a review of those proceedings and of the expanded record, if any, determine whether an
2

evidentiary hearing is required. If it appears that an evidentiary hearing is not required, the
judge shall make such disposition of the petition as justice shall require. 28 U.S.C. foll. §
2254, Rule 8(a); Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 549 (E.D. Mich. 1999)(Gadola, J.).
When deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider
whether such a hearing could enable the habeas petitioner to prove the petition’s factual
allegations, which, if true, would entitle the petitioner to federal habeas relief on his claim
or claims. Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). “[B]ecause the deferential
standards prescribed by § 2254 control whether to grant habeas relief, a federal court must
take into account those standards in deciding whether an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.”
Id. If the record refutes the habeas petitioner’s factual allegations or otherwise precludes
habeas relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Id. Stated
differently, a habeas petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims if they
lack merit. See Stanford v. Parker, 266 F. 3d 442, 459-60 (6th Cir. 2001).
The renewed motion for an evidentiary hearing will be denied without prejudice
because the Court has not yet reviewed the pleadings or the state court record. Without
reviewing these materials, the Court is unable to determine whether an evidentiary hearing
on petitioner’s claims is needed. Following review of these materials, the Court will then
determine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve petitioner’s claims. The
motion for an evidentiary hearing is denied without prejudice.
Petitioner filed a renewed motion for discovery.
“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant, is not entitled to discovery as a
3

matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Instead, a habeas
petitioner is entitled to discovery only if the district judge “in the exercise of his discretion
and for good cause shown grants leave” to conduct discovery. Rule 6 Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. To establish “good
cause” for discovery, a habeas petitioner must establish that the requested discovery will
develop facts which will enable him or her to demonstrate that he or she is entitled to habeas
relief. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09. The burden is on the petitioner to establish the
materiality of the requested discovery. See Stanford v. Parker, 266 F. 3d at 460. A further
limitation on discovery is the recent case of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1398–1401
(2011), in which the Supreme Court held that under the clear language of the 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d), a district court is precluded from considering new evidence when reviewing a
petition under § 2254(d) where the petitioner's claims were adjudicated on the merits in state
court proceedings.
Until a respondent files an answer to the habeas petition, “it is impossible to evaluate
what, if any, discovery is needed and whether the discovery is relevant and appropriately
narrow.” Gengler v. United States ex rel. Dept. of Defense & Navy, 463 F. Supp. 2d 1085,
1114-15 (E.D. Cal. 2006); See also Shaw v. White, No. 2007 WL 2752372, * 3 (E.D. Mich.
September 21, 2007). In addition, none of the Rule 5 materials have been reviewed by the
Court; “and receipt of those materials may obviate the need to order discovery.” Shaw, No.
2007 WL 2752372, at * 3. Granting petitioner’s discovery request at this time would be
premature. Therefore, the motion for discovery will be denied without prejudice. Id.
4

Petitioner filed a motion for bond.
To receive bond pending a decision on the merits of a habeas corpus petition, a
petitioner must show a substantial claim of law based on the facts and exceptional
circumstances justifying special treatment in the interest of justice. Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869,
871 (6th Cir. 1993)(quoting Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990)); See also Nash
v. Eberlin, 437 F. 3d 519, 526, n. 10 (6th Cir. 2006). There will be few occasions where a
habeas petitioner meets this standard. Dotson, 900 F. 2d at 79. Federal courts may grant bail
when granting the writ. See Sizemore v. District Court, 735 F. 2d 204, 208 (6th Cir. 1984).
By implication, a federal court should not grant bail under other circumstances. In light of
the fact that petitioner has failed to establish at this time that he would prevail on the merits
of his claims, he is not entitled to release on bail. See e.g. Greenup v. Snyder, 57 Fed. Appx.
620, 621-22 (6th Cir. 2003).
3. The motion for oral argument.
Petitioner has also filed a motion for oral argument.
A federal district court can grant oral argument in a habeas case where it would assist
in resolving the matters raised in the habeas petition. See e.g. Haskell v. Berghuis, 695 F.
Supp. 2d 574, 584 (E.D. Mich. 2010). Petitioner’s request for oral argument is premature.
The Court will reconsider petitioner’s motion once it reviews all of the pleadings and Rule
5 materials.
4. The motion to expedite the petition.
Petitioner moved for an expedited hearing on his petition.
5

Petitioner has failed to show good cause to expedite a ruling on his petition for habeas
relief to the detriment of petitions filed prior to the filing of his petition, because petitioner
has shown no undue delay or that any delay had been or would be highly prejudicial to him.
See Castillo v. Pratt, 162 F. Supp. 2d 575, 576 (N.D. Tex. 2001). Petitioner merely argues
that his current sentence is illegal. Petitioner’s request and attack on his sentence “differs
little from the vast majority of habeas petitions” that are filed with the court. Id. Petitioner
has shown nothing which would separate his habeas application from the petitions that
preceded it. Id. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that his petition has such merit that
expedited consideration is warranted. Castillo, 162 F. Supp. 2d 576. The motion is denied.
5. The motion to strike the answer.
Petitioner moved to strike the respondent's answer because of their cursory response
to his third claim.
The Court will deny petitioner’s request to strike respondent’s answer. As another
judge in this district has indicated: “There is no way a § 2254 case can be decided on a
petitioner’s submission only, and a court should not put itself in a position of considering the
petition without a response by the respondent.” Mahaday v. Cason, 222 F. Supp. 2d 918, 921
(E.D. Mich. 2002). The problem with striking a respondent's answer is that any such
decision by the court “creates a self-inflicted wound”, because without a response from the
State of Michigan, “a judge is left with a one-sided view of the habeas corpus petition–that
of the prisoner, who is most likely untrained in the law and has submitted a short petition to
the court that does not include records and transcripts from the court proceedings in which
6

the prisoner was convicted.” Id. at 921. Under these circumstances, a judge is unable to
“isolate the precise contours of the dispute”, because he or she would be “missing half of the
story”, i.e. the state court proceedings, which are necessary to properly adjudicate the habeas
petition. Id. Therefore, although an expeditious review of a habeas petition is desirable, a
quick adjudication of the petition should not be done at the expense of an incomplete review.
Id. at 922. Accordingly, the Court will not strike respondent’s answer.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment (Dkt. ## 24,
34), the motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. # 25), the renewed motion for an
evidentiary hearing, for discovery, and for bond (Dkt. # 30), the motion for oral argument
(Dkt. # 31), the motion for an expedited hearing, (Dkt. # 33), and the motion to strike the
pleadings (Dkt. # 35) are DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: January 24, 2018

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of
record on this date, January 24, 2018, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

7