Seals v. Warden Noble Correctional Institution
Filing
12
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 10/23/2024. (acw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
DANIEL SEALS,
Petitioner,
:
Case No. 2:24-cv-03360
- vs -
District Judge Algenon L. Marbley, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN, Noble Correctional
Institution,
:
Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
This habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was brought pro se by Petitioner Daniel
Seals to obtain relief from his conviction in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas on
one count of gross sexual imposition (Petition, ECF No. 1). The case is before the Court on
Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery in which he seeks (1) to have the full trial transcript filed and
(2) to have a deposition taken of his brother James (Motion, ECF No.
The Court ordered Respondent, through the Ohio Attorney General, to file a return to the
writ along with “those portions of the state court record needed to adjudicate this case.” (Order,
ECF No. 2, PageID 19). In making his Return, the Warden states “The trial transcripts are
available, but the Warden did not file them because he does not believe they are necessary to
adjudicate this petition.” (ECF No. 6, PageID 256).
The Court treats the Motion as being one to expand the record from what the Respondent
1
filed so that both the Court and Petitioner would have a more complete record of what occurred in
the trial court.
However, Petitioner has not shown good cause to add the trial transcripts. He treats Rule
5(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings as requiring the full transcript when he notes that
Respondent essentially admits that the State Court Record is incomplete. But the same Rule says
the Court may order additional parts of the transcript filed, implying that filing less than the full
transcript is permissible if additional portions are not needed to adjudicate the case.
Petitioner’s other justification is his statement that “there is no other means for the
Petitioner to present what he considers relevant from the transcripts (un-redacted, in full- not in
part) in his own defense without this motion.” (ECF No. 11, PageID 290). But that is a purely
conclusory statement – it does not tell the Court why Petitioner cannot defend without the
transcript.
In the second branch of his Motion, Petitioner seeks to have his brother James deposed and
offers the questions he wishes to have his brother asked. Presumably he also wanrts the transcribed
deposition added to the record for this Court to consider.
However, adding whatever James might say in a deposition to the record is not permissible.
The Court is required to decide whether the state courts constitutionally erred in convicting
Petitioner by considering only the record that was before those courts without adding additional
evidence. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011); Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022).
Accordingly, the Motion for Discovery is DENIED.
October 23, 2024.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
2
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?