Hazel v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Filing
22
DECISION AND ORDER on Petitioner's Motion to Expand the Record (Doc. No. 14), Petitioner's Motion to Supplement the State Court Record (Doc. No. 15), Petitioner's Motion for Notice of Filing (Doc. No. 16), Petitioner's Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. No. 18), and Petitioner's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order Denying a second motion to extend time to file a reply (Doc. No. 20). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/31/2014. (kpf1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MICHAEL HAZEL,
Petitioner,
:
- vs -
Case No. 3:13-cv-332
District Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN, Chillicothe
Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record
(Doc. No. 14), Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the State Court Record (Doc. No. 15),
Petitioner’s Motion for Notice of Filing (Doc. No. 16), Petitioner’s Motion for Production of
Documents (Doc. No. 18), and Petitioner’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Decision and
Order Denying a second motion to extend time to file a reply (Doc. No. 20).
The Decision and Order denying the extension of time (Doc. No. 19) is VACATED and
Petitioner’s time to file a reply is extended to and including June 3, 2014. Hazel’s Objections to
the denial are therefore moot.
Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the State Court Record provides an improvised list of
what Petitioner believes are/will be the PageID numbers of the exhibits he has tendered with his
Motion for Notice of Filing. The Motion to Supplement is DENIED because the PageID
numbers provided are inaccurate; the actual PageID numbers were added to those documents
when the Motion for Notice of Filing was filed with the Clerk. In any future filings, Hazel may
1
refer to the documents attached to his Notice of Filing by citing their exhibit number as he has
numbered them himself. In responding to any such citation, the Warden shall use both the
exhibit number of the relevant PageID number as those numbers no appear on the docketed copy
of the Notice of Filing.
Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED without
suggesting any ruling on whether these documents are in fact relevant to this case and without
prejudice to any argument the Warden may have that reliance on these documents is barred by
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (2011).
Petitioner’s Motion for Notice of Filing (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. As with the documents attached to Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement the
State Court Record (Doc. No. 15), the documents now filed with Doc. No. 16 will be considered
by the Court as appropriate in deciding the case, again without prejudice to any reliance by the
Warden on Pinholster and without deciding relevance at this time. Hazels’ request that the Court
order the Clerk “to send Mr. Hazel a piece of paper that will reveal what the proper PageID’s are,
starting from (Doc. No. 1) to the last Document that has been filed” is DENIED. Under policy
of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Clerk is required to charge a fee of $.50 per
page for producing copies of documents on file and the Court does not have sufficient clerical
assistance to have a Deputy Clerk compile the list Hazel requests. For those documents for
which he does not have PageID numbers, he may refer to them in future filings by their title and
page number.
Petitioner’s Motion for Production of Documents (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 34 on which Petitioner relies does not govern discovery in habeas corpus cases. A habeas
petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a matter of course, but only upon a fact-specific showing
2
of good cause and in the Court’s exercise of discretion. Rule 6(a), Rules Governing § 2254
Cases; Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969); Byrd v.
Collins, 209 F.3d 486, 515-16 (6th Cir. 2000).
Before determining whether discovery is
warranted, the Court must first identify the essential elements of the claim on which discovery is
sought. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904, citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996).
The burden of demonstrating the materiality of the information requested is on the moving party.
Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 831 (2002), citing
Murphy v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 809, 813-15 (5th Cir. 2000). “Even in a death penalty case, ‘bald
assertions and conclusory allegations do not provide sufficient ground to warrant requiring the
state to respond to discovery or require an evidentiary hearing.’” Bowling v. Parker, 344 F.3d
487, 512 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 842 (2004), quoting Stanford, 266 F.3d at 460.
Petitioner may renew his motion for discovery by filing in compliance with Habeas Rule 6.
March 31, 2013.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?