MOORE v. WETZEL et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying 52 Motion to Compel Respondents to produce state court record pursuant to Habeas Rule 5 (d) as set forth herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 03/25/2020. A copy of this Notice and Order have been mailed to Petitioner's address of record. (tjw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JARED ALAN MOORE,

)
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN E. WETZEL; THE ATTORNEY
)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
)
PENNSYLVANIA,
)
Respondents. )
Petitioner,

Civil Action No. 15-293
Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly
Re: ECF No. 52

ORDER
Jared Alan Moore (“Petitioner”) had filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the “Petition”), seeking to attack his convictions for,
inter alia, First Degree Murder. ECF No. 2. After the case was stayed pending Petitioner’s
exhaustion of state court remedies, and after he accomplished the exhaustion, the case was reopened, and Petitioner filed an Amended Habeas Petition. ECF No. 22. Respondents filed a Motion
to Dismiss based on untimeliness. ECF No. 37. The Court ordered Petitioner to file a Response to
the Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 39.
Petitioner has now filed a Motion to Compel Respondents to Produce State Court Record
Pursuant to Habeas Rule 5(d) (the “Motion to Compel”). ECF No. 52. For the reasons that follow,
the Motion to Compel will be denied.
In a previous order denying Petitioner’s requests for discovery, the Court instructed
Petitioner as follows:
In light of this, we also note that despite Petitioner providing this Court with
many exhibits in his many pleadings, to the extent that those exhibits relate to any
Grounds for Relief which the state courts have adjudicated on the merits, this Court
may not consider such exhibits or evidence until and unless, Petitioner shows where
in the state court record such exhibits or evidence exists. Accordingly, if Petitioner
cites to any exhibits attached to his pleadings, he must either show for each and every

exhibit where in the state court record such exhibits appear or explain why the Court
may consider such exhibits notwithstanding AEDPA’s restrictions as explained in
Cullen v. Pinholster and its progeny. If Petitioner fails to do so, the Court cannot
and will not consider such exhibits or evidence.
ECF No. 40. Now, in the instant Motion to Compel, Petitioner seeks to have Respondents provide
portions of the state court record that he asserts he needs in order to be able to show where some of
the exhibits he attached to his Amended Petition are in the state court record. ECF No. 52 ¶ 6.
Petitioner’s Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice to being refiled if the Motion to
Dismiss is denied. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner may utilize any exhibits he
desires because the prohibition against considering items which are not contained in the state court
record which is found in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(1), only applies to federal courts review of federal
claims adjudicated on the merits by a state courts. Because the Motion to Dismiss raises only the
issue of the timeliness of his Amended Habeas Petition, an issue not addressable by state courts, and
not subject to the prohibition of Section 2254(d)(1), Petitioner may rely on any exhibits he desires.
Therefore, he does not now show an immediate need for the requested items of the state court record
which he requests in the Motion to Compel.
To the extent that Petitioner requests in the Motion to Compel that this Court consider
exhibits not contained in the state court record if it reviews the Amended Petition on the merits, the
request is DENIED. ECF No. 52 ¶ 7. Petitioner cites Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986) for
the proposition that federal habeas Courts may consider supplemental evidence not contained in the
state court record. We reject this claim. The United States Supreme Court in Pinholster made very
clear that federal habeas Courts may not do so when it declared the following:
The State does not contest that the alleged claim was adjudicated on the merits by the
California Supreme Court, but it asserts that some of the evidence adduced in the
federal evidentiary hearing fundamentally changed Pinholster's claim so as to render
it effectively unadjudicated. See Brief for Petitioner 28–31; Reply Brief for Petitioner
2

4–5; Tr. of Oral Arg. 18. Pinholster disagrees and argues that the evidence adduced
in the evidentiary hearing simply supports his alleged claim. Brief for Respondent
33–37.
We need not resolve this dispute because, even accepting Pinholster's position, he is
not entitled to federal habeas relief. Pinholster has failed to show that the California
Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law on the record
before that court, infra, at 1403 – 1406, 1408 – 1410, which brings our analysis to an
end. Even if the evidence adduced in the District Court additionally supports his
claim, as Pinholster contends, we are precluded from considering it. See n.
20, infra.
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 187 n.11 (2011) (emphasis added). See also id. at 203 n. 20
(“Because Pinholster has failed to demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim based on the
state-court record resulted in a decision ‘contrary to’ or ‘involv[ing] an unreasonable
application’ of federal law, a writ of habeas corpus ‘shall not be granted’ and our analysis is at an
end. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We are barred from considering the evidence Pinholster submitted in
the District Court that he contends additionally supports his claim.”).
Lastly, the Court rejects Petitioner’s suggestion that Pinholster had no impact on discovery
standards in habeas review. ECF No. 52 ¶ 8. While there may be a split of decisions, we find the
majority rule more persuasive. Kemp v. Ryan, 638 F.3d 1245, 1258 n.8 (9th Cir. 2011) (reasoning
post-Pinholster that if AEDPA barred a petitioner from having an evidentiary hearing, the petitioner
necessarily could not show “good cause” for discovery under Rule 6); Broom v. Bobby, 1:10 CV
2058, 2018 WL 1621083, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2018) (“This Court agrees with the majority
position that Pinholster applies to factual development through discovery in federal habeas
proceedings, and precludes petitioners from conducting discovery on claims that were adjudicated on
the merits in state courts as district courts are limited in their review under § 2254(d)(1) to the record
that was before those courts.”).

3

Accordingly, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 25th

day of March, 2020 Petitioner’s Motion to Compel is DENIED

without prejudice to the extent that Petitioner seeks to have Respondents produce more of the state
court record. To the extent that the Motion to Compel seeks any other relief, the Motion is DENIED
with prejudice.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Maureen P. Kelly

MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc:

Jared Alan Moore
HR-2763
SCI Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
All Counsel of Record via CM-ECF

4