Satchell v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING 36 Report and Recommendations. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the case DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Petitioners Motions for Evidentiary Hearing 39 and for Production of Documents 40 are hereby DENIED. Any remaining motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 09/20/11. cc:petr 9-20-11 (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

VERNON ERWIN SATCHELL, #1453363

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:08cv360

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled and numbered petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge Judith K. Guthrie. The Report of the
Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition
of such action, has been presented for consideration. Petitioner has filed objections.
Having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner to the Report, the Court
is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and Petitioner’s
objections are without merit. Specifically, Petitioner objects to each of the Magistrate Judge’s
findings in the Report by re-stating essentially the same arguments raised in his reply to the
Respondent’s answer. The Magistrate Judge discussed each of these points and Petitioner has
produced nothing to show that the findings of the state courts were either contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of
the United States, or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings. See Riddle v. Cockrell, 288
F.3d 713, 716 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 537 U.S. 953, 123 S. Ct. 420, 154 L. Ed. 2d 300 (2002).
Therefore, Petitioner’s objections are overruled.
1

Petitioner also filed two motions concurrently with his objections: a Motion for an Evidentiary
Hearing (docket entry #39) and a Motion for Production of Documents (docket entry #40).
Evidentiary hearings are not required in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Rule 8, Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; McCoy v. Lynaugh, 874 F.2d 954, 966-67 (5th Cir.
1989). Quite the contrary, “to receive a federal evidentiary hearing, a petitioner must allege facts that,
if proved, would entitle him to relief.” Wilson v. Butler, 825 F.2d 879, 880 (5th Cir. 1987), cert.
denied, 484 U.S. 1079, 108 S. Ct. 1059, 98 L. Ed. 2d 1021, and reh’g denied, 485 U.S. 1015, 108 S.
Ct. 1491, 99 L. Ed. 2d 719 (1988). To obtain an evidentiary hearing, a petitioner must show the
existence of a genuine dispute of material fact, which if resolved in his favor would grant him relief,
and he has been denied a full and fair hearing in the underlying state proceedings. Valdez v. Cockrell,
274 F.3d 941, 944 n.4 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 312-13, 83 S. Ct. 745,
9 L. Ed. 2d 770 (1963), overruled in part by Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 5-6, 112 S. Ct.
1715, 118 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1992) (holding that were the petitioner has failed to develop a claim in state
court proceedings, he must establish cause and prejudice in order to receive a federal evidentiary
hearing)), reh’g denied, 287 F.3d 392 (5th Cir.) and reh’g en banc denied, 288 F.3d 702 (5th Cir.) and
cert. denied, 537 U.S. 883, 123 S. Ct. 106, 154 L. Ed. 2d 141 (2002). A court need not “‘blindly
accept speculative and inconcrete claims’ as the basis upon which to order a hearing.” Ellis v.
Lynaugh, 873 F.2d 830, 840 (5th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 970, 110 S. Ct. 419,
107 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1989). These requirements “avoid wasting federal judicial resources on the trial
and federal habeas corpus claims.” Wilson, 825 F.2d at 880. The Petitioner has not alleged facts
showing that he is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief or that he is entitled to an evidentiary
hearing.

2

This decision is buttressed by Petitioner’s motion for production of documents; he now seeks
this Court to order produced documents and transcripts from his state trial. He should have obtained
any such documents long ago, if he believed them to be pertinent, and should have obtained them from
the state court instead of petitioning this Court for them. Both motions will be denied.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is
DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
It is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Evidentiary Hearing (docket entry #39) and for
Production of Documents (docket entry #40) are hereby DENIED. It is finally
ORDERED that any remaining motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby
DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20th day of September, 2011.

__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3