Dykes v. Haas
Filing
20
OPINION and ORDER Denying 16 MOTION to Expand the Record, and 18 MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Cavasseaire Tidell Dykes,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 17-cv-13617
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Randall Haas,
Respondents.
Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
EXPAND THE RECORD [16] AND MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING [18]
Michigan state prisoner Cavasseaire Tidell Dykes filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his
convictions for first-degree home invasion, Mich. Comp. Laws §
750.110a(2), felon in possession of a firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws
§750.224f, felonious assault, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82, possession of a
firearm during commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b,
unlawful imprisonment, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.349b, and domestic
violence, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.81(2).
Now before the Court are
Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record (ECF No. 16) and Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 18). The Court denies the motions because
the state court adjudicated these claims on the merits.
Petitioner seeks to expand the record to include the following
documents related to the criminal history of the victim in his case, Kellie
Diann Jackson: nine Flint Police Department records related to criminal
charges filed against Kellie Diann Jackson (including booking cards,
arrest reports, and citations); a Flint Police Department “Detail Call for
Service Report” related to a 2009 emergency call placed by Jackson; and
Freedom of Information Act requests by Petitioner. (ECF No. 16,
PageID.1355-1357.) Petitioner argues that these documents will support
his claims that the prosecutor withheld evidence of Jackson’s criminal
history, which included crimes involving dishonesty, and that his
attorney was ineffective in failing to discover Jackson’s criminal history.
He also seeks an evidentiary hearing to present evidence supporting
these claims. (ECF No. 18.)
Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows parties to
expand the record with leave of the court by “submitting additional
materials relating to the petition.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule
7. Under Rule 8, the Court must “determine whether an evidentiary
2
hearing is warranted” after reviewing the relevant state court record,
petition, and answer. Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 8. But when
a claim has been adjudicated on the merits in state court, the Court must
limit habeas review to the record that was before the court that
adjudicated the claim on the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Cullen v.
Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180 (2011). The Michigan Court of Appeals
addressed the merits of Petitioner’s prosecutorial misconduct and
ineffective assistance of counsel claims. See People v. Dykes, No. 323944,
2016 WL 716789 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2016). Therefore, the Court
must decide these claims on the record that was before the Michigan
Court of Appeals.
Section 2254(e)(2) does not change this result. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(e)(2) allows a federal district court to hold an evidentiary hearing
under limited circumstances. But as the Supreme Court suggested in
Cullen and as the Sixth Circuit later recognized, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)
applies only “where § 2254(d) does not federal bar habeas relief.” See
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. at 185; Hodges v. Colson, 727 F.3d 517, 541
(6th Cir. 2013). 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1) and (e)(2) “ensure that ‘[f]ederal
courts sitting in habeas are not an alternative forum for trying facts and
3
issues which a prisoner made insufficient effort to pursue in state
proceedings.’” Cullen, 563 U.S. at 187 (quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529
U.S. 420, 437 (2000)). Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing
under 2254(e) is premature. The Court will limit its § 2254(d) review to
the record that was before the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the Court
finds that § 2254(d) does not bar habeas relief, Petitioner may renew, and
the Court will reconsider, his motions.
For the reasons stated, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to
Expand the Record (ECF No. 16) and Motion for Evidentiary Hearing
(ECF No. 18).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2020
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 12, 2020.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
4
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?