UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANA MAURICE MILLER,

Petitioner,

 CASE NO. 2:15-cv-12056

v. HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

STEVE RIVARD,

Respondent.

__________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF A PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner Dana Maurice Miller has filed a pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The habeas petition challenges

Petitioner’s state convictions for first-degree murder, Mich. Comp. Laws §

750.316, felon in possession of a firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224f,

and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, Mich.

Comp. Laws § 750.227b. Petitioner is serving a life sentence for the

murder conviction, two to five years in prison for the felon-in-possession

conviction, and two years for the felony-firearm conviction. The Michigan

Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s convictions, see People v. Miller, No.

314659 (Mich. Ct. App. June 17, 2014), and, on November 25, 2014, the

2:15-cv-12056-DPH-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 12/17/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 894
Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because it was not

persuaded to review the questions. See People v. Miller, 497 Mich. 905;

856 N.W.2d 21 (2014) (table). 

On June 5, 2015, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition in which

he raises several issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial

court, the prosecutor, and trial counsel. Currently pending before the Court

is Petitioner’s motion for appointment of a private investigator. Petitioner

states that he needs a private investigator to show that the murder victim

did not report him to the police for an incident that occurred more than a

year before the murder. 

Habeas petitioners are 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 a matter confided to the discretion of the District Court.” Id. at

909. In this case, moreover, it appears that the disputed evidence was

introduced to show that Petitioner had threatened the victim with a firearm

in the past. The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court

properly admitted the evidence to show Petitioner’s intent to commit

murder. 

2

2:15-cv-12056-DPH-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 12/17/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 895
This Court is bound by the state court’s interpretation of state law,

Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005), and any errors in the

application of state law, especially rulings about the admission or exclusion

of evidence, usually are not questioned in a federal habeas corpus

proceeding. Seymour v. Walker, 224 F.3d 542, 552 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing

Cooper v. Sowders, 837 F.2d 284, 286 (6th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly,

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of a private investigator, Docket No. 3,

is denied.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: December 17, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon

counsel of record on December 17, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-12056-DPH-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 12/17/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 896