Pltf’s UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RONALD MILFORD DIXON, 

 Petitioner, 

 CASE NO. 15-11977 

v. HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS 

PAUL KLEE, 

 Respondent. 

____________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR BOND, 

ORAL ARGUMENTS, AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, DISCOVERY, 

AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (ECF No. 10) 

I. Introduction

 This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The pleadings and 

record before the Court indicate that, in 2013, petitioner Ronald Milford Dixon 

(“Petitioner”) pleaded guilty in Saginaw County Circuit Court to possession of less than 

twenty-five grams of cocaine. The trial court sentenced Petitioner to sixty days in jail 

and three years on probation. As a condition of probation, Petitioner was required to 

complete a substance-abuse program offered by an agency known as Tri-CAP. 

 Petitioner subsequently was charged with violating the terms of probation by not 

completing the Tri-CAP program. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found 

Petitioner guilty as charged. The court then sentenced Petitioner to prison for a 

minimum of thirty months and a maximum of fifteen years with credit for 121 days.1

 

 

1

 This sentence was later reduced to two to fifteen years in prison with credit for 382 

days.

2:15-cv-11977-NGE-MKM Doc # 12 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 297
2 

 Petitioner moved to set aside his conviction for violating the conditions of 

probation. He claimed, among other things, that his hearing attorney was ineffective. 

The trial court determined that the attorney was not constitutionally ineffective. The 

Michigan Court of Appeals found no merit in Petitioner’s claim and denied leave to 

appeal. See People v. Dixon, No. 322051 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2014). On February 

3, 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because it was not 

persuaded to review the issue. See People v. Dixon, 858 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2015). 

 On June 1, 2015, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition. His sole ground for 

relief is that his attorney at the probation-violation hearing was ineffective for failing to 

investigate and subpoena witnesses and for assuring Petitioner that he would prevail at 

the hearing without calling any witnesses. Currently pending before the Court is 

Petitioner’s motion for release on bond, for oral arguments, for an evidentiary hearing, 

for discovery, and for a certificate of appealability. Respondent Paul Klee has not filed 

an answer to the motion, but he states in his answer to the habeas petition that he 

opposes any requests for bond, oral arguments, an evidentiary hearing, discovery, a 

certificate of appealability, or any other relief. 

II. Discussion 

A. Bond

 Petitioner filed his pending motion for bond and other relief on January 8, 2016. 

At the time, he was confined at a re-entry center in Detroit, Michigan. On April 4, 2016, 

Petitioner notified the Court of his new address in Bridgeport, Michigan. The new 

address appears to be a private residence, and records maintained by the Michigan 

Department of Corrections on its official website indicate that Petitioner has been 

2:15-cv-11977-NGE-MKM Doc # 12 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 298
3 

released on parole. See 

http://mdocweb.state.mi.us/OTIS2/otis2profile.aspx?mdocNumber=234201. Thus, the 

request for bond is denied as moot. 

B. Oral Arguments

 Petitioner has requested oral arguments, but the written pleadings are adequate, 

and oral arguments are unnecessary. The Court therefore denies Petitioner’s request 

for oral arguments. 

C. Evidentiary Hearing

 Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing on his claim about his hearing attorney. 

This request must be considered in light of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death 

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which 

restricts the availability of federal evidentiary hearings. See Davis v. 

Lafler, 658 F.3d 525, 539 (6th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (Martin, J., concurring 

in part). For a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in a state court 

proceeding, sections 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2) of AEDPA apply, and the 

district court is limited to the record that was before the state court at the 

time. See [Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011)]; 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(d)(2). 

Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 464 (6th Cir. 2012); see also 

Carter v. Mitchell, No. 13-3996, slip op. at 12 (6th Cir. July 13, 2016) (stating that 

“Pinholster indeed limit[s] the ‘record under review’ in federal habeas proceedings to 

‘the record before the state court,’ precluding review of evidence developed in federal 

habeas proceedings”). 

 The state trial court adjudicated Petitioner’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel 

claim on the merits. Therefore, this Court’s review is limited to the record that was 

before the state court, and Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is denied. 

2:15-cv-11977-NGE-MKM Doc # 12 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 299
4 

D. Certificate of Appealability

 Petitioner seeks a certificate of appealability, but the Court has not yet 

adjudicated his habeas petition. Consequently, his request for a certificate of 

appealability is denied as premature. 

E. Discovery

 The remaining issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to discovery. He seeks the 

following items if the Court grants discovery: (1) the “write-ups” about him; (2) his 

grievances; (3) the daily reports he completed to show that he complied with the TriCAP program and rules; (4) destination slips to show that he left and returned to TriCAP in a timely manner; (5) staff lists showing when he left the building and when he 

returned; (6) phone records to show that he called Tri-CAP as instructed; (7) documents 

showing the two programs he participated in; and (8) the complete Tri-CAP file on him. 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), “a party may move for an order 

compelling disclosure or discovery.” And “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 confined illegally and is therefore entitled to relief, it is the duty 

of the court to provide the necessary facilities and procedures for an adequate inquiry.” 

Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969). 

 But “[a] habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not 

entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course,” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 

904 (1997), and the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases state that “[a] judge may, for 

good cause, . . . limit the extent of discovery.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 6(a). “Rule 6(a) 

2:15-cv-11977-NGE-MKM Doc # 12 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 300
5 

makes it clear that the scope and extent of such discovery is a matter confided to the 

discretion of the District Court.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 909. 

 Petitioner seeks discovery to show that: (1) the prosecution’s witness at the 

probation-violation hearing gave false and inaccurate testimony about his conduct at 

Tri-CAP; and (2) there was not a preponderance of evidence that he violated the 

conditions of probation. The habeas petition, however, raises only a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; it does not include independent claims challenging the credibility 

of the prosecution’s witness or the sufficiency of the evidence. Even if it did, this Court 

may not 

reweigh the evidence or redetermine the credibility of the witnesses whose 

demeanor has been observed by the trial court. Marshall v. Lonberger, 

459 U.S. 422, 434, 103 S.Ct. 843, 74 L.Ed.2d 646 (1983). It is the 

province of the factfinder to weigh the probative value of the evidence and 

resolve any conflicts in testimony. Neal v. Morris, 972 F.2d 675, 679 (6th 

Cir. 1992). 

Matthews v. Abramajtys, 319 F.3d 780, 788-89 (6th Cir. 2003). 

 Furthermore, Petitioner conceded at the evidentiary hearing that he violated 

some Tri-Cap rules and that he returned late to Tri-CAP at least one time. He also 

admitted that he filed two grievances, and, according to the prosecution’s witness, staff 

at Tri-CAP viewed the filing of grievances as an indication that Petitioner was not 

accepting the program. The prosecution’s witness also testified that she did not think 

Petitioner could go back to Tri-CAP and be a successful resident. In light of Petitioner’s 

admissions and the other testimony at the evidentiary hearing, it is unlikely Petitioner 

would be entitled to relief even if the facts were more fully developed. The Court 

therefore denies Petitioner’s request for discovery. 

2:15-cv-11977-NGE-MKM Doc # 12 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 301
6 

III. Conclusion

 For all the reasons given above, Petitioner’s motion for bond, oral arguments, an 

evidentiary hearing, a certificate of appealability, and discovery [ECF No. 10] is 

DENIED. 

 s/ Nancy G. Edmunds 

 NANCY G. EDMUNDS 

Dated: July 27, 2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:15-cv-11977-NGE-MKM Doc # 12 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 302