UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DARRYL CAIN, 

 Petitioner, Case Number 15-10096 

v. Honorable David M. Lawson 

LORI GIDLEY, 

 Respondent. 

 / 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 

This matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s motion for discovery in this habeas 

proceeding. The petitioner contends that disclosure of certain documents relating to the police 

investigation and the state court proceedings in his case are necessary in order to substantiate the 

claims raised in his original and amended petitions. 

The petitioner filed his original petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on January 7, 2015. On 

April 29, 2015, the Court granted the petitioner’s motion to stay the proceedings and hold the 

petition in abeyance while he returned to state court to exhaust certain additional claims. On 

October 25, 2016, the petitioner filed an amended petition, and the case was reopened. The 

amended petition raises nine issues relating to prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of 

trial and appellate counsel, trial court misconduct, double jeopardy violations, lack of probable 

cause for arrest, defects in a photographic lineup, Brady violations, lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction, and defects in the charging and arraignment process. After the amended petition was 

filed, the Court ordered the respondent to file a response and the materials from the state court 

record of proceedings required under Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. The 

response and Rule 5 materials were filed on February 27, 2017. 
- 2 - 

The Court has reviewed the petitioner’s motion and finds that he has not shown that 

discovery is warranted in this case. “Habeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery.” 

Williams v. Bagley, 380 F.3d 932, 974 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, 

Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts permits a 

court to authorize discovery only upon a showing of good cause. Ibid. “Rule 6 embodies the 

principle that a court must provide discovery in a habeas proceeding only ‘where specific 

allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully 

developed, be able to demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.’” Ibid. (quoting Bracy v. 

Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997)). The petitioner has not shown good cause to depart from 

the usual procedure disallowing discovery in habeas cases, and he has not established any good 

grounds to compel the disclosure of information beyond the Rule 5 materials. 

Moreover, the function of this Court on habeas review is to decide whether the state courts 

unreasonably determined any facts or unreasonably applied any clearly established federal law 

when resolving those claims. The provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 

of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996), which govern this case, 

“circumscribe[d]” the standard of review federal courts must apply when considering an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus raising constitutional claims. See Wiggins v. Smith, 539 

U.S. 510, 520 (2003). Because the present petition and amended petition were filed after the 

AEDPA’s effective date, its standard of review applies. Under that statute, if a claim was 

adjudicated on the merits in state court, a federal court may grant relief only if the state court’s 

adjudication “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application 

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or 
- 3 - 

if the adjudication “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the 

facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

This Court’s review of the claims raised in the petition and the amended petition is 

restricted to the record before the state courts, and that record is provided by the respondent’s filing 

of the materials required by Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Cullen v. 

Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 180 (2011) (“[R]eview under § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that 

was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.”). If, upon further review of 

the petition and amended petition, the Court finds that the record of state court proceedings is 

incomplete or does not include all of the information considered by the state courts, then the Court 

may consider granting further appropriate relief. For now, however, the petitioner has not 

established that discovery of any additional information is required to resolve any of the claims 

raised in the original or amended petitions, and the Court therefore will deny the motion. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF 

No. 18) is DENIED. 

 s/David M. Lawson 

 DAVID M. LAWSON 

 United States District Judge 

Date: February 15, 2019 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was 

served upon each attorney or party of record herein by 

electronic means or first class U.S. mail on February 15, 2019.

 s/Susan K. Pinkowski 

 SUSAN K. PINKOWSKI