UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SEAN MICHAEL RYAN, 

 Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 14-11611 

Honorable Linda V. Parker 

THOMAS MACKIE, 

 Respondent. 

_______________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

SUBSTITUTION OF RESPONDENT (ECF NO. 55); (2) REQUESTING 

RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING 

STATE OFFICIALS TO RETURN PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (ECF NO. 

63); AND (3) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 56 & 61), FOR A HEARING (ECF NO. 57), FOR A 

REMAND TO STATE COURT (ECF NO. 59), AND FOR EXPEDITED 

REVIEW (ECF NOS. 54 & 58) 

 Michigan prisoner Sean Michael Ryan (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se 

habeas corpus petition challenging his state court convictions for first-degree 

criminal sexual conduct. Currently pending before the Court are seven motions 

Petitioner filed in July 2015, and one request he filed on December 22, 2015.1

 For 

the reasons given below, the Court is granting Petitioner’s motion for substitution 

 

1

This Court already has adjudicated twenty-one motions previously filed by 

Petitioner. Petitioner should be aware that flooding the Court with motions௅ many 

of which raise the same request for relief as previously denied motions௅ delays the 

Court in its ability to adjudicate his application for habeas relief. 

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 64 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1276
2 

of the respondent, directing Respondent to respond to Petitioner’s request for a 

return of his property, and denying his other motions. 

I. Background

 In 2010, a jury in Saginaw County Circuit Court found Petitioner guilty of 

seven counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws 

§ 750.520b(1)(a) (penetration of a person under thirteen years of age). The charges 

arose from allegations that Petitioner sexually abused his young daughter. The 

trial court sentenced Petitioner to concurrent terms of twenty-five to fifty years in 

prison for six of the seven counts and to a consecutive term of twenty-five to fifty 

years in prison for the remaining count. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed 

Petitioner’s convictions and sentences in a published decision, People v. Ryan, 819 

N.W.2d 55 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012), and on October 4, 2012, the Michigan Supreme 

Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Ryan, 820 N.W.2d 918 (Mich. 2012) 

(table). Petitioner also pursued state collateral remedies without success. 

 On April 17, 2014, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition in this Court. 

(ECF No. 1.) In support of his request for relief, Petitioner asserts the following: 

(1) the state courts deprived him of due process by denying his requests for an 

evidentiary hearing; (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise all his 

claims on direct appeal; (3) trial counsel’s omissions deprived him of effective 

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 64 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 1277
3 

assistance of counsel; (4) the police delayed his probable cause hearing to obtain 

additional information; (5) the prosecution relied on perjured testimony; (6) the 

prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence; (7) the police destroyed or failed to 

preserve exculpatory evidence; (8) he was arrested on less than probable cause in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment; (9) the trial court erroneously admitted his 

partially videotaped statement to the police; (10) the cumulative effect of errors 

resulted in an unfair trial; (11) he is actually innocent of the crimes for which he is 

incarcerated; and (12) the Court should grant leave to amend his petition with other 

issues. Respondent Thomas Mackie (“Respondent”) argues in a responsive 

pleading filed through counsel that Petitioner’s claims lack merit or are not 

cognizable on habeas review. (ECF No. 47.) Currently pending before the Court 

are Petitioner’s two motions for summary judgment, motions to expedite review of 

two motions, motion for substitution of the respondent, and motions for an 

evidentiary hearing or to remand this case to the state court for an evidentiary 

hearing. Petitioner also has filed a request to compel state officials to return his 

legal property.

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 64 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 1278
II. Analysis

A. Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 56 and 61) and Motion for 

Expedited Review (ECF No. 54)

 Petitioner alleges in his motion for summary judgment filed on July 2, 2015 

(ECF No. 56), that he served requests for admissions on his trial attorney and on 

the Saginaw County prosecutor on May 28, 2015. He claims that neither his 

former attorney nor the prosecutor responded to his requests. Petitioner seeks 

expedited review of this motion. (ECF No. 54.) 

 In his motion for summary judgment filed on July 22, 2015 (ECF No. 61), 

Petitioner alleges that he served a request for admissions on respondent Thomas 

Mackie and that Respondent ignored his request. Petitioner asserts that because his 

requests were ignored, the requested admissions are deemed admitted and all 

matters admitted are conclusively established. 

 The Court must grant summary judgment if “there is no genuine dispute as 

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Thus, “[s]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, 

the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is 

no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law.” White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 617 F.3d 472, 

475 (6th Cir. 2010). When determining whether a genuine issue of material fact 

exists, the Court “views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 64 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 1279
5 

party.” Id. at 476 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., V. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 

U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). 

 Petitioner seeks to have Respondent and persons who are not parties to this 

lawsuit admit that there was a delay in his arraignment, that the prosecution 

suppressed evidence, that trial counsel was ineffective, and that Petitioner’s rights 

under the Fourth Amendment were violated. As an initial matter, a request for 

admissions is a discovery device, and Petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a 

matter of course. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). The scope and 

extent of discovery is discretionary with the Court. Id. at 909. 

 Petitioner had an opportunity for discovery before his trial, and he 

subsequently pursued a direct appeal and post-conviction remedies in state court. 

He has not shown good cause for discovery at this stage of the proceedings. The 

Court therefore finds that additional discovery is unwarranted. 

 Moreover, even if deemed admitted, the facts in Petitioner’s requests for 

admissions are contradicted by other evidence in the record such that there are 

genuine issues of fact precluding summary judgment. Questions of law cannot be 

resolved through his request for admissions. Legal determinations must be decided 

by the Court. 

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 64 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 1280
6 

 To conclude, there are genuine issues of material facts and Petitioner is not 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motions for 

summary judgment (ECF Nos. 56 and 61) are denied. And because the Court was 

unable to expedite review of Petitioner’s motions, his motion for expedited review 

(ECF No. 54) is denied. 

B. Motions for an Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 57), for Expedited 

Review of the Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 58), and for 

a Remand (ECF No. 59) 

 Petitioner seeks to have his case remanded to the state court for an 

evidentiary hearing on his Fourth Amendment claim. He also seeks an evidentiary 

hearing in this Court on his Fourth Amendment claim and expedited review of his 

motion for an evidentiary hearing. 

 The Court cannot remand this case to the state court for the issuance of fuller 

findings to facilitate habeas review. Harris v. Stovall, 212 F.3d 940, 943 n.1 (6th 

Cir. 2000) (“It would be error for a federal court to ‘remand’ an action to the state 

appellate courts for the issuance of fuller findings to facilitate review under 

AEDPA or for a federal court to order any state court to issue fuller findings.”). 

Therefore, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for a remand. (ECF No. 59). 

 Petitioner also is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing in this Court. As the 

Court previously explained to Petitioner (see ECF No. 50 at Pg ID 1220), where 

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 64 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 1281
7 

the State provides an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment 

claim, a state prisoner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief on the ground 

that evidence obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights was introduced 

at the prisoner’s trial. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976). Although 

Petitioner claims that he was denied a full and fair hearing in state court, as the 

Court also explained previously (ECF No. 50 at Pg ID 1220), “the Powell

‘opportunity for full and fair consideration’ means an available avenue for the 

prisoner to present his claim to the state courts, not an inquiry into the adequacy of 

the procedure actually used to resolve that particular claim.” Good v. Berghuis, 

729 F.3d 636, 639 (6th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1174 (2015). Petitioner 

had an opportunity to raise his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and, in fact, 

raised his claim there. Consequently, his Fourth Amendment claim is not 

cognizable on habeas review, and he has no right to a hearing on the claim in this 

Court. His motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 58) and his motion for 

expedited review of the motion (ECF No. 58) are denied. 

C. Motion for Substitution of Respondent (ECF No. 55)

 Petitioner states that he has been transferred to another prison. He seeks to 

substitute his current warden for respondent Thomas Mackie. 

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 64 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 1282
8 

 The correct respondent in a federal habeas action is the person who holds the 

petitioner in custody. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242, 2243; Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Michigan 

Department of Corrections’ official website reflects that Petitioner is incarcerated 

at the Chippewa Correctional Facility where Jeffrey Woods is the warden. See

http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2.aspx. Because Mr. Woods has custody of 

Petitioner, the Court is granting Petitioner’s Motion for Substitution of Respondent 

and is directing the Clerk of the Court to substitute Jeffrey Woods for Thomas P. 

Mackie as the respondent. (ECF No. 55). 

D. Request for a Return of Property (ECF No. 63)

 In his most recent court filing, Petitioner alleges that state prison officials are 

withholding his legal property. Although the legal property apparently is available 

to Petitioner one floor away from his cell, he alleges that he has serious health 

problems and cannot put any weight on one of his legs. He claims that the 

Michigan Department of Corrections and officials at the prison where he is 

confined are violating his rights under the Constitution and the Americans with 

Disabilities Act by making his legal property inaccessible to him. The Court is 

requesting that Respondent respond to Petitioner’s request. 

 For the reasons given above, 

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 64 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 1283
9 

 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for summary judgment, for an 

evidentiary hearing, for a remand, and for expedited review of his motions (ECF 

Nos. 54, 56-59, and 61) are DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for substitution of 

the respondent (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall substitute 

Jeffrey Woods for Thomas Mackie as respondent. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file a response to 

Petitioner’s request for the return of his legal property (ECF No. 63) within 

twenty-one (21) days of this Opinion and Order. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: January 22, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, January 22, 2016, by electronic and/or 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:14-cv-11611-LVP-MKM Doc # 64 Filed 01/22/16 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 1284