UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CRAIG BROWN,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-10735

v. HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

KENNETH J. AUD, et. al,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY

HEARING/RENEWED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY [Dkt. # 50] AND THE

MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT THE MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY

HEARING [Dkt. # 51], AND GIVING PETITIONER THIRTY DAYS TO INFORM

THE COURT WHETHER HE WISHES TO EXHAUST ADDITIONAL CLAIMS IN

THE STATE COURTS

Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing and a renewed motion

for discovery, as well as a motion to amend or correct his motion for an

evidentiary hearing. Respondent has filed a response to the motions and

petitioner has filed a reply. For the reasons that follow, the motions are DENIED. 

The Court will further grant petitioner thirty days to inform the Court whether he

wishes to return to the state courts to exhaust additional claims.

I. Background

On June 18, 2012, this Court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus

on petitioner’s claim that Michigan law was unconstitutionally vague as to whether

1

2:09-cv-10735-AJT-RSW Doc # 55 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 3886
Brown v. Aud, et. al. 2:09-CV-10735 

Trenbolone, the drug contained in the Finaplix–H that petitioner had in his

possession, is a controlled substance classified in schedule 1, 2, or 3 under

Michigan’s controlled substance laws. Brown v. Aud, 868 F. Supp. 2d 608 (E.D.

Mich. 2012). Because the Court granted habeas relief on this claim, the Court

declined to rule on petitioner’s remaining claims. Id.

The Sixth Circuit reversed this Court’s judgment, ruling that this Court had

erred in granting habeas relief to petitioner on his vagueness claim. The Sixth

Circuit remanded the matter to this Court to consider petitioner’s remaining

grounds for relief. Brown v. Aud, No. 2013 WL 6017899 (6th Cir. November 12,

2013); cert. den. 134 S.Ct. 1769 (2014). 

On December 17, 2014, this Court reopened the case to the Court’s active

docket and directed respondent to file a response to petitioner’s two motions.

II. Discussion

In his renewed motion for discovery and/or for an evidentiary hearing,

petitioner seeks discovery to support his claim that Michael Evans testified falsely

at petitioner’s trial that the employees of his company, AIT Labs, performed a

urinalysis on a urine sample of petitioner’s and that it tested positive for steroids. 

Petitioner also suggests that there may have been tampering with the evidence

because an earlier urine sample from the same day had tested negatively for

steroids. Petitioner has since obtained evidence which he claims supports his

2

2:09-cv-10735-AJT-RSW Doc # 55 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 3887
Brown v. Aud, et. al. 2:09-CV-10735 

allegation that Michael Evans committed perjury at trial concerning the positive

urinalysis and that this affected the verdict. Petitioner seeks an order directing

the discovery of the identity of the lab technician or technicians that conducted

both of the urinalysis tests of the February 2003 sample of his urine, the name of

the laboratory where the analyst(s) did the testing, and the chain-of-custody

records for his urine sample. 

Petitioner acknowledges that his claim that the prosecution presented

perjured evidence, in violation of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153

(1972), and/or withheld exculpatory evidence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), has yet to be exhausted with the state courts, but seeks

an order of discovery from this Court in order to prepare his state post-conviction

motion. Petitioner filed a motion for discovery in the trial court, but the judge

denied the motion. Petitioner, however, has yet to file a post-conviction motion

for relief from judgment in the state courts.

As a general rule, a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief must first

exhaust his available state court remedies before raising a claim in federal court.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c); Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275-78 (1971);

Hannah v. Conley, 49 F. 3d 1193, 1195 (6th Cir. 1995). A petition for a writ of

habeas corpus filed by a state prisoner shall not be granted unless the petitioner

has exhausted his available state court remedies, there is an absence of

3

2:09-cv-10735-AJT-RSW Doc # 55 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 3888
Brown v. Aud, et. al. 2:09-CV-10735 

available state corrective process, or circumstances exist that render such

process ineffective to protect the petitioner’s rights. See Turner v. Bagley, 401 F.

3d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 2005). 

Habeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery. Stanford v.

Parker, 266 F. 3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001). A district court has the discretion,

under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, to

grant discovery to a petitioner in a habeas case upon a fact specific showing of

good cause. Id. A federal district court may permit discovery in a habeas case if

the petitioner presents specific allegations which give the court reason to believe

that the facts, if fully developed, may lead the district court to believe that federal

habeas relief is appropriate. See Johnson v. Mitchell, 585 F.3d 923, 934 (6th Cir.

2009); See also Lott v. Coyle, 261 F.3d 594, 602 (6th Cir. 2001). However, Rule 6

of the Habeas Rules does not “sanction fishing expeditions based on a

petitioner’s conclusory allegations.” Williams v. Bagley, 380 F. 3d 932, 974 (6th

Cir. 2004)(internal quotation omitted). 

Petitioner’s Brady-Giglio claim is unexhausted, thus, he is not entitled to

discovery in support of this claim. See Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist.

of California (Sacramento), 113 F.3d 149 (9th Cir. 1997); See also See Calderon

v. United States Dist. Ct., 120 F. 3d 927, 928 (9th Cir.1997)(until petitioner filed

federal habeas corpus petition on exhausted claim, he could not avail himself of

4

2:09-cv-10735-AJT-RSW Doc # 55 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 3889
Brown v. Aud, et. al. 2:09-CV-10735 

discovery); Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. of California, 98 F.

3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 1996)(“any right to federal discovery presupposes the

presentation of an unexhausted federal claim, because a federal habeas

petitioner is required to exhaust available state remedies as to each of the

grounds raised in the petition”). Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is

likewise premature for the same reason that petitioner has yet to exhaust his

claim with the state courts. See e.g. Alley v. Bell, 307 F. 3d 380, 388-90 (6th Cir.

2002). 

Petitioner argues that the State of Michigan does not provide for postconviction discovery and that the state judge already denied him discovery on this

basis. Petitioner is not entirely correct with either premise. M.C.R. 6.507

provides that the parties may “expand the record by including any additional

materials [the court] deems relevant to the decision on the merits of the motion.

The expanded record may include letters, affidavits, documents, [and]

exhibits....”. See also People v. Grissom, 492 Mich. 296, 330, n. 16, 821 N.W.2d

50, 68 (2012)(Kelly, J., concurring). Michigan thus provides a basis for limited

discovery in post-conviction proceedings. Moreover, it is not clear that the judge

denied petitioner’s discovery request on the ground that Michigan does not

provide discovery in post-conviction cases or that the prosecutor opposed

petitioner’s request on this basis. Although the prosecutor argued at the motion

5

2:09-cv-10735-AJT-RSW Doc # 55 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 3890
Brown v. Aud, et. al. 2:09-CV-10735 

hearing that there was no post-appeal discovery, he appeared to argue this in the

context of noting that petitioner’s case was closed and that petitioner had yet to

file a motion for relief from judgment. The prosecutor suggested that petitioner

could file a motion for relief from judgment and request this information as part of

that motion. (Tr. 6/26/13, pp. 4-7, attached as Petitioner’s Exhibit A to the Motion

for Evidentiary Hearing/Renewed Motion for Discovery). The prosecutor, in fact,

in their reply to petitioner’s motion acknowledged that petitioner could obtain

discovery pursuant to M.C.R. 6.507(A) provided that there was a pending motion

for relief from judgment. (People’s Response to Defendant’s Post-Conviction

Post-Appeal Motion to Compel Discovery, pp. 4-5, attached as Petitioner’s Exhibit

B to Petitioner’s Reply Brief). Petitioner thus has a potentially available state

remedy to obtain this discovery and to exhaust his claim. The Court will deny

petitioner’s motions for discovery. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court will order petitioner to clarify within thirty

days of this order whether he wishes to delete his unexhausted Brady-Giglio

claim from consideration and proceed with only the exhausted claims which have

yet to be adjudicated, or whether he wishes to ask this Court to hold the petition

in abeyance to permit him to return to the state courts to exhaust this additional

claim.

6

2:09-cv-10735-AJT-RSW Doc # 55 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 3891
Brown v. Aud, et. al. 2:09-CV-10735 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the motion for an evidentiary hearing/renewed

motion for discovery [Dkt. # 50] and the motion to amend/correct the motion for

an evidentiary hearing [Dkt. # 51] are DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall clarify within thirty days of

this order whether he wishes to delete his unexhausted claim or claims from

consideration and proceed with only the exhausted claims, or whether he wishes

to ask this Court to hold the petition in abeyance to permit him to return to the

state courts to exhaust these additional claims.

S/Arthur J. Tarnow 

Arthur J. Tarnow

Senior United States District Judge

Dated: February 11, 2015

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

parties/counsel of record on February 11, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

S/Catherine A. Pickles 

Judicial Assistant

7

2:09-cv-10735-AJT-RSW Doc # 55 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 3892