Reed v. Steele
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to expand the record [Doc. # 23 ] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for sanctions [Doc. # 19 ] is denied. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/19/2016. (CLO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ARTHUR T. REED,
Case No. 4:15-CV-1843 (CEJ)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motions to expand the record
of his petition for writ of habeas corpus and for sanctions. Respondent has not filed
responses and the time allowed for doing so has elapsed.
A jury in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City found petitioner Arthur T. Reed
guilty of second-degree burglary, resisting arrest, stealing, first-degree trespass,
and second-degree property damage. Doc. #15-4 at 108-12. He was sentenced to
a total of twenty-four years of incarceration. Doc. #15-4 at 126-31. In his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, petitioner asserts, inter alia, claims arising from his
assertion that arresting officer Matthew Tesreau falsely testified that he seized and
packaged a hammer and petitioner’s clothing. Petitioner seeks to expand the record
to include the evidence envelopes and related documentary evidence to show that
the evidence was actually packaged by police officer John Pierce.
Petitioner’s motion to expand the record is governed by Rule 7 of the Rules
Governing Habeas Corpus Cases under Section 2254.1 In order to introduce
Rule 7 states: “If the petition is not dismissed, the judge may direct the parties to expand
the record by submitting additional materials relating to the petition.”
evidence pursuant to this rule, petitioner must meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(e)(2). Mark v. Ault, 498 F.3d 775, 788 (8th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), “[a] habeas petitioner must develop the factual
basis of his claim in the state court proceedings rather than in a federal evidentiary
hearing unless he shows that his claim relies upon a new, retroactive law, or due
diligence could not have previously discovered the facts.” Id. (quoting Cox v.
Burger, 398 F.3d 1025, 1030 (8th Cir. 2005)). Additionally, “a petitioner must show
that the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would
have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” Id. (quoting Perry v.
Kemna, 356 F.3d 880, 889 (8th Cir. 2004)).
Petitioner does not address the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e) and
thus cannot establish that he is entitled to expand the record. Furthermore, Pierce
testified at a post-trial hearing that he received the evidence from Tesreau and
packaged it. Doc. #15-1 at 101-02. The evidence envelopes and other documents
are cumulative of Officer Pierce’s testimony and thus their inclusion in the record is
unnecessary to adjudicate petitioner’s claims for relief.
In his motion for sanctions, petitioner asks the Court to order the exclusion
of the hammer and his clothing in the event that he is awarded a new trial as the
result of these habeas corpus proceedings. The Court does not have the authority
to grant the relief petitioner seeks.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to expand the record
[Doc. #23] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for sanctions [Doc. #19]
CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 19th day of September, 2016
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?