Pitchford v. Hall et al

Filing 232

ORDER denying 230 Motion To Supplement Record with Trial Transcript. Signed by Senior Judge Michael P. Mills on 5/21/2024. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
TERRY PITCHFORD
V.

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-CV-002-MPM

BURL CAIN, MDOC Commissioner; and
LYNN FITCH, Attorney General for the State of Mississippi

RESPONDENTS

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD WITH TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s motion [230] to supplement the record
with the trial transcript under Rule 10(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Upon due
consideration of the motion, response, and applicable authority, the Court finds that the motion is
not well-taken and should be denied.
Petitioner seeks “to add the entire state court trial transcript to the record before this Court
and to transmit a certified copy of it to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.” Doc. # 230 at 1. In
support, Petitioner avers that he cited to the trial transcript in his initial and amended petitions, and
that “[s]ome of the petition cites are to transcript pages that appear nowhere in the current record
before this Court and therefore nowhere in the Record on Appeal that has been transmitted to the
Fifth Circuit.” Doc. # 230 at 2.
Petitioner’s assertions, although correct, do not necessitate the relief requested.
Ordinarily, Respondents must file the state court record, in its entirety, upon filing a responsive
pleading to the petition and/or amended petition. However, due to Petitioner’s own request, the
ordinary scheduling deadlines, including the deadline for the filing of Respondents’ responsive
pleading and the state court record, were suspended until after Petitioner’s motion for partial
summary judgment (and, potentially a motion to stay and abey these proceedings) was addressed.

See Doc. #s 194, 196, 198, 204 (Petitioner’s Motion for Revised Scheduling Order and Extensions
of Time to File Motion for Partial Summary Judgment); #s 195, 197, 199, 206 (Orders Granting
Petitioner’s Motions for Revised Scheduling Order and Extensions of Time to File Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment).
This Court granted habeas relief on Petitioner’s Batson claim pursuant to his motion for
partial summary judgment. See Doc. #s 216, 217. Thus, the ordinary deadlines were no longer
applicable, and the state court record has never been filed. The voir dire transcript, which
Petitioner attached and relied on in moving for partial summary judgment, and this Court likewise
relied on in granting habeas relief, is the only portion of the state-court record which has been
filed. Respondents timely appealed the aforementioned ruling, and that appeal is currently pending
before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
The following items constitute the record on appeal:
(1) the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court;
(2) the transcript of proceedings, if any; and
(3) a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the district clerk.
F.R.A.P. 10(a). The full state-court trial transcript was not “filed in the district court”; is not part
of “the transcript of proceedings” in the district court; and is not “a certified copy of the docket
entries prepared by the district clerk.” Consequently, the full state-court transcript does not
constitute part of the record on appeal. Rather, only the state-court voir dire transcript is part of
the record on appeal as it was the only portion “filed in the district court” before this Court entered
its order granting habeas relief.
Rule 10(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, on which Petitioner relies in the
instant motion, provides as follows:

2

If anything material to either part is omitted from or misstated in the record by error
or accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental
record may be certified and forwarded:
(A) on stipulation of the parties;
(B) by the district court before or after the record has been forwarded; or
(C) by the court of appeals
F.R.A.P. 10(e). The Court notes at the outset that the requested supplementation has not been
stipulated by the parties. By its own terms, Rule 10(e) provides for a way to correct the record on
appeal, not to alter it. More to the point, Rule 10(e) “ensure[s] that the record on appeal accurately
reflects what happened in the district court”, but “is not designed to supply what might have been
done in the district court but was not.” Ghali v. United States, 455 F. App’x 472, 476 (5th Cir.
2011) (per curiam)(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The current record on appeal
is accurate as to “what happened in [this Court].” This is so because it includes the voir dire
transcript which was the only portion of the state-court trial transcript which the parties filed and
the only record material on which this Court based its decision.
In sum, Petitioner has failed to show that there are any portions “omitted [] or misstated in
the record by error or accident”, but instead merely seeks to alter the record with portions of the
state-court record which were not before the Court at any time and, resultingly, would not be
material to the issues currently before the appellate court. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion [230]
to supplement record with trial transcript is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 21st day of May, 2024.

/s/Michael P. Mills
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

3