Raglin v. Mitchell

Filing 160

MEMORANDUM OPINION - In this case, although discovery was permitted, no evidentiary hearing was sought or held, so there is no evidence from such a hearing to exclude from consideration on the § 2254(d)(1) issue, as Cullen requires. Nor was any evidence gathered in discovery added to the record by way of a motion to expand. Therefore Cullen will not impact this Court's decision on the § 2254(d)(1) issue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/9/2011. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WALTER RAGLIN,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 1:00-cv-767
:

District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsBETTY MITCHELL, Warden,
:
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This capital habeas corpus case is ripe on the merits for decision by Judge Barrett.1 On April
12, 2011, Respondent filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority, calling the Court’s attention to
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 179 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2011), and claiming
Pinholster is relevant to the following matters: (1) whether, or under
what circumstances, a federal habeas court can consider evidence
that was not presented to the state court that adjudicated the claim;
(2) the propriety and necessity of discovery and/or evidentiary
hearings on a claim adjudicated in state court on the merits; and (3)
whether deference is owed to a state court adjudication summarily
denying the claim on the merits.
(Notice, Doc. No. 155, PageID 1042). Because the Notice offered no argument as to the impact of
Cullen, the Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to brief that question (Doc. No. 156) and they have

1

Also pending before Judge Barrett is Petitioner’s Appeal (Doc. No. 150) of the Magistrate
Judge’s Decision and Order (Doc. No. 149) denying Petitioner’s Amended Motion for Discovery. If
Petitioner were to be granted additional discovery as a result of the Appeal, the case would not be
ripe for decision.

-1-

done so (Doc. Nos. 157, 158).
In Cullen the Supreme Court decided “that review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record
that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” 131 S. Ct. at 1398. That
is, in deciding whether a state court adjudication of a claim on the merits was contrary to or an
objectively unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, the federal
habeas court is to consider only the record before the state court, and not any evidence added to the
record in federal court.
In this case, although discovery was permitted, no evidentiary hearing was sought or held,
so there is no evidence from such a hearing to exclude from consideration on the § 2254(d)(1) issue,
as Cullen requires. Nor was any evidence gathered in discovery added to the record by way of a
motion to expand. Therefore Cullen will not impact this Court’s decision on the § 2254(d)(1) issue.
June 9, 2011.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-