Watson v. Thaler et al

Filing 43

ORDER TO EXPAND THE RECORD. Responses due by 6/3/2013.(Signed by Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby) Parties notified.(mserpa, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JONATHAN HARRIS WATSON,
Petitioner,
VS.
RICK THALER, et al,
Respondents.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-349

ORDER TO EXPAND THE RECORD
On May 17, 2013, United States District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos denied
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice and referred this action
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for evaluation and further proceedings. (D.E. 40,
41).
After considering the documents and evidence in this case, this court is not
satisfied that the record is sufficient. Specifically, Petitioner was disciplined for
possessing unauthorized drugs despite his claims that the medications were either
prescribed by TDCJ medical personnel or otherwise lawfully purchased at the facility
commissary. (D.E. 26, p. 3). TDCJ has not addressed whether Petitioner was prescribed
the pills at issue or whether any were over-the-counter medications available at the
facility commissary. Further, Petitioner was disciplined for being “out of place” based
on the allegation that Petitioner went to the commissary at an unauthorized time in
1/3

violation of TDCJ rules. (D.E. 26, p.5). Respondent has not addressed Petitioner’s
claim that he had permission from Lieutenant Gutierrez to be at the commissary at the
relevant time.
Rule 7(a) of the rules governing § 2254 cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, indicates that if
a habeas petition is not summarily dismissed, the judge “may direct the record be
expanded by the parties by the inclusion of additional material relevant to the
determination of the merits of the petition.” “The materials that may be required include
letters predating the filing of the petition, documents, exhibits, and answers under oath
to written interrogatories propounded by the judge.” Habeas Rule 7(b). The purpose of
Rule 7 “is to enable the judge to dispose of some habeas petitions not dismissed on the
pleadings without the time and expense required for an evidentiary hearing.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (Rule 7, advisory committee notes).
The court may employ a variety of measures to avoid the necessity of an
evidentiary hearing in a habeas case, including the direction to expand the record to
include evidentiary materials that may resolve the factual dispute without the need for
an evidentiary hearing. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 81-82, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52
L.Ed.2d 136 (1977). The decision of whether to order an expansion of the record under
Rule 7 is within the sound discretion of the district court. See Ford v. Seabold, 841 F.2d
677, 691 (6th Cir.1988).
Therefore, the Court orders counsel for Respondents to submit on or before June
3, 2013, the following:
2/3

1. An affidavit from a healthcare provider with knowledge of Petitioner’s
medical records and treatment, addressing whether Petitioner had a
prescription or other medical authorization to possess the pills that formed the
basis for Disciplinary Case Number 20120255256. The portion of Petitioner’s
medical records supporting the affidavit shall be attached as an exhibit and the
entire affidavit, with attachments, shall be filed under seal.
2. An affidavit from TDCJ Lieutenant Gutierrez addressing the matters in
Disciplinary Case Number 20120255256, specifically whether he granted
Petitioner permission to go to the commissary at the time alleged in the
disciplinary proceeding.
3. Petitioner and Respondents may submit any other evidence of matters they
deem necessary to clarify the facts made the basis of this action on or before
the date set out above.
SIGNED this 20th day of May, 2013.

___________________________________

Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge

3/3