Shelton v. Stephens-Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 11 MOTION TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L Horan on 4/14/2016) (mcrd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TERRY C. SHELTON
(TDCJ No. 480475),
Petitioner,
V.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:16-cv-700-M-BN

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS
In this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas action, referred to the undersigned United
States magistrate judge for pretrial management pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
a standing order of reference from United States District Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn,
the undersigned issued, on April 8, 2016, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a
recommendation (“FCR”) that the Court should dismiss the habeas application with
prejudice on limitations grounds under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases (“Habeas Rule 4”). See Dkt. No. 9.
Petitioner Terry C. Shelton, a Texas inmate proceeding pro se, has now filed a
motion requesting “certified copies of documents or records on file” under 28 U.S.C. §
2250. See Dkt. No. 11 (“Petitioner seeks these records as ‘Documentary Evidence’ as
outlined and in accordance with [28 U.S.C.] § 2247 so that he may present his claim
in the Court and the filing for COA.”). Although Petitioner’s Section 2250 motion was
received on April 12, 2016, after the undersigned issued the FCR, it is postmarked
-1-

April 8, 2016. See id. at 3. Prior to entering the FCR, the Court granted Petitioner
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Dkt. No. 6.
The Section 2250 motion [Dkt. No. 11] is DENIED without prejudice for the
reasons explained below.
Legal Standards and Analysis
28 U.S.C. § 2250
“The in forma pauperis statute does not grant the court the authority to provide
an indigent litigant with copies of all the documents in the record.” Anderson v. Gillis,
236 F. App’x 738, 739 (3d Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (citing Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d
661, 662 (6th Cir. 1964) (per curiam), for proposition that “the statutory right to
proceed in forma pauperis does not include right to free copies of court orders”).
But 28 U.S.C. § 2250 provides that:
If on any application for a writ of habeas corpus an order has been made
permitting the petitioner to prosecute the application in forma pauperis,
the clerk of any court of the United States shall furnish to the petitioner
without cost certified copies of such documents or parts of the record on
file in his office as may be required by order of the judge before whom the
application is pending.
Under this statute, a habeas petitioner is entitled to free copies of records on file
in the federal proceeding only where ordered by the presiding judge. And “[w]hile
indigent prisoners in a habeas case who have been granted in forma pauperis status
are entitled to obtain certain documents without cost, copies of documents generated
by the petitioner and filed by him previously in the case would not be included.”
Anderson, 236 F. App’x at 739 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2250); see also Walker v. United
States, 424 F.2d 278, 278-79 (5th Cir. 1970) (per curiam) (“Title 28 U.S.C. § 2250
-2-

provides that only where a petitioner for the writ of habeas corpus has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his application is pending before the court is
that petitioner entitled to be furnished copies of court records without cost.”).
Petitioner also must show a need for and the relevance of the requested records. See
Bingham v. Dretke, No. 4:03-cv-877-Y, 2004 WL 122549, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2004),
rec. adopted, 2004 WL 396265 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2004) (citing United States v.
MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 326-28 (1976)). And the decision whether to provide the
petitioner with copies of documents rests within the Court’s sound discretion. See
Althouse v. Cockrell, Nos. 3:01-cv-0779-R, 3:01-cv-2154-R, & 3:01-cv-2155-R, 2004 WL
377049, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2004) (citing cases).
The Habeas Record
In a habeas case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court cannot expand
the record on a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court. See Cullen v. Pinholster,
563 U.S. 170, 180-81 (2011). That is, “review under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record
that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Id. at 180.
Because Section 2254 “requires an examination of the state-court decision at the time
it was made,” the Supreme Court held that “the record under review is limited to the
record in existence at that same time i.e., the record before the state court.” Id. at 182;
see also Gallow v. Cooper, 505 F. App’x 285, 295-96 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam)
(“Similarly, the language of § 2254(d)(2) limits review to the ‘evidence presented in the
State court proceeding.’” (footnote omitted)).
But, “[p]rocedurally speaking, habeas corpus is an unruly beast. The statutes
concerning habeas corpus allow ‘documentary evidence’ to be added, 28 U.S.C. § 2247,
-3-

and in the discretion of the judge, evidence ‘by affidavit.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2246. Judges are
allowed in their discretion to ‘supplement the record’ with whatever documentary
evidence seems appropriate. Rules for § 2254 cases, Rule 7.” Coleman v. Clark, No. CIV
S-07-0136 FCD GGH P, 2008 WL 5273519, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2008), rec. adopted,
2009 WL 414056 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2009), aff’d, 398 F. App’x 193 (9th Cir. 2010).
In Coleman, the court addressed which “standard ... the court utilizes to assess
the extra-record evidence in an AEDPA statute of limitations motion” and chose the
“line of authority which would indicate that the AEDPA statute of limitations may be
decided on the extra-record submittals of the parties within a motion despite the
existence of an ‘issue of fact,’ except where the court in its discretion believes that the
factual ‘paper’ record is insufficient and requires an evidentiary hearing.” Id.
Analysis
Here, after providing Petitioner notice and an opportunity to respond, the
undersigned has recommended that Petitioner’s habeas application be denied on
limitations grounds under Habeas Rule 4, which authorizes a district court to
summarily dismiss a Section 2254 habeas application “if it plainly appears from the
face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court.” Id.
This recommendation was based solely on information that Petitioner provided
to the Court – in his application [Dkt. No. 3] and his verified responses to the Court’s
questionnaire concerning limitations [Dkt. No. 4]. Those “documents[,] generated by
the petitioner and filed by him previously in the case,” which form the basis of the
recommendation to dismiss the habeas application, are not included in the universe of
-4-

documents the Court could provide Petitioner under Section 2250. Anderson, 236 F.
App’x at 739. And the Court’s orders and the FCR have been served on Petitioner. As
such, the Court has not considered, and there currently is no need to consider,
“documentary evidence, transcripts of proceedings upon arraignment, plea and
sentence and a transcript of the oral testimony introduced on any previous similar
application [for a writ of habeas corpus] by or in behalf of [Petitioner]” as evidence in
this proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2247 (emphasis added); see Hampton v. Wyrick, 588 F.2d
632, 633 n.1 (8th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (affirming denial of motion seeking documents
under Section 2247 because “[m]uch of the information sought to be produced was part
of the record before the district court”).
Therefore, Section 2247 currently does not provide a basis to grant the Section
2250 motion, and Petitioner has not shown other grounds that support providing him
free copies of the records on file in this proceeding that he did not generate.
Should Judge Lynn reject the FCR or, if she accepts the FCR, and Petitioner
believes he needs certain documents in order to move for a certificate of appealability,
the current denial is without prejudice to his right to file a new motion under Section
2250 in the future.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 14, 2016
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-5-