Davis v. Jackson

Full title: CORTEZ ROLAND DAVIS, Petitioner, v. ANDREW JACKSON, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Aug 8, 2007

Civil No. 01-CV-72747 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 8, 2007)

Opinion

Civil No. 01-CV-72747.

August 8, 2007

SECOND ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF STATE COURT RECORD

R. WHALEN, Magistrate Judge

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus through counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was originally dismissed without prejudice because petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies. On March 12, 2007, the Court signed an order reopening the petition. The Court further ordered respondent to file an answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the habeas corpus rules. After being given an extension of time, respondent filed an answer to the petition on May 11, 2007. Respondent, however, has failed to file the Rule 5 materials. These materials are necessary for resolving petitioner's claims.

The habeas corpus rules require respondents to attach the relevant portions of the transcripts of the state court proceedings, if available, and the court may also order, on its own motion, or upon the petitioner's request, that further portions of the transcripts be furnished. Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F. 3d 647, 653 (6^th Cir. 2002); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. "When this information is required, it is the State's responsibility to provide it." Griffin, 308 F. 3d at 654. An appropriate response to a habeas petition is an answer which responds to each allegation contained in the petition and which attaches copies of the relevant judgment of conviction, any available and relevant transcripts, and any post-conviction pleadings and decisions. Chavez v. Morgan, 932 F. Supp. 1152, 1153 (E. D. Wis. 1996). Habeas Rule 5 speaks in mandatory terms as to what must be attached to the respondent's answer. Flamerv. Chaffinch, 774 F. Supp. 211,219 (D. Del. 1991). The general rule is that a district court must review the entire state court trial transcript in federal habeas cases, and where substantial portions of that transcript were omitted before the district court, the habeas case should be remanded to the District Court for consideration in light of the full record. See Adams v. Holland, 330 F. 3d 298, 406 (6^th Cir. 2003). It is reversible error for a district court to fail to review the transcripts upon which a habeas petitioner's claims are dependent. See Shaw v. Parker, 27 Fed. Appx. 448, 450 (6^th Cir. 2001).

Based upon the foregoing, the court orders respondent to produce the Rule 5 materials within twenty one (21) days of the date of this order or show cause why they are unable to comply with the order.

SECOND ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF STATE COURT RECORD

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus through counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was originally dismissed without prejudice because petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies. On March 12, 2007, the Court signed an order reopening the petition. The Court further ordered respondent to file an answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the habeas corpus rules. After being given an extension of time, respondent filed an answer to the petition on May 11, 2007. Respondent, however, has failed to file the Rule 5 materials. These materials are necessary for resolving petitioner's claims.

The habeas corpus rules require respondents to attach the relevant portions of the transcripts of the state court proceedings, if available, and the court may also order, on its own motion, or upon the petitioner's request, that further portions of the transcripts be furnished. Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F. 3d 647, 653 (6^th Cir. 2002); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 5, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. "When this information is required, it is the State's responsibility to provide it." Griffin, 308 F. 3d at 654. An appropriate response to a habeas petition is an answer which responds to each allegation contained in the petition and which attaches copies of the relevant judgment of conviction, any available and relevant transcripts, and any post-conviction pleadings and decisions. Chavez v. Morgan, 932 F. Supp. 1152, 1153 (E. D. Wis. 1996). Habeas Rule 5 speaks in mandatory terms as to what must be attached to the respondent's answer. Flamer v. Chaffinch, 774 F. Supp. 211,219 (D. Del. 1991). The general rule is that a district court must review the entire state court trial transcript in federal habeas cases, and where substantial portions of that transcript were omitted before the district court, the habeas case should be remanded to the District Court for consideration in light of the full record. See Adams v. Holland, 330 F. 3d 298, 406 (6^th Cir. 2003). It is reversible error for a district court to fail to review the transcripts upon which a habeas petitioner's claims are dependent. See Shaw v. Parker, 27 Fed. Appx. 448, 450 (6^th Cir. 2001).

Based upon the foregoing, the court orders respondent to produce the Rule 5 materials within twenty one (21) days of the date of this order or show cause why they are unable to comply with the order.