UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

RANDY MAX PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:09-CV-10244

Honorable Judge Thomas L. Ludington 

BLAINE LAFLER, 

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO AMEND HIS HABEAS PETITION, AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR ACCESS TO CASE AUTHORITIES 

Petitioner, Randy Max Patterson, presently confined at Carson City Correctional Facility,

in Carson City, Michigan, has filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. A jury convicted Petitioner of arson of a dwelling house, Mich. Comp. Laws §

750.72, and conspiracy to commit arson, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.72, but could not reach an

agreement on a third felony murder charge. A mistrial was declared with respect to the felony

murder charge, and Petitioner subsequently entered a no-contest plea to a lesser second decree

murder charge, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.317. He received a 13-to-20-year sentence on the seconddegree murder conviction, and two 7-to-20-year sentences on the arson and conspiracy convictions.

In this § 2254 action, Petitioner challenges the validity of the plea agreement, and alleges

ineffective assistance of trial counsel and an invalid sentencing. Pending before the Court are

petitioner’s “Motion for Oral Argument,” “Motion to Amend/Supplement by Leave Petitioner’s Writ

1:09-cv-10244-TLL-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 1843
-2-

of Habeas Corpus Memorandum of Law” and “Motion for Access to Case Authorities Available

only in Electronic Databases (Lexis and Westlaw) and Other Access-Limited Publications.” For the

reasons that follow, the Court will deny petitioner’s motion for oral argument, but will grant the

motions to amend the petition and for access to case authorities.

I

A

Petitioner requests oral argument in this case because he believes his habeas petition raises

issues that are “complex and intricate” such that they require “oral arguments so the courts may

benefit and the interests of justice are served.” Mot. for Oral Arg. at 2. Although courts do not

typically grant oral argument when a party is in custody, a court has discretion to do so. See E.D.

Mich. L.R. 7.1(e)(1). In this case, the Rule 5 materials were recently filed [Dkt. # 10], as well as

the government’s motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations [Dkt. # 9]. If

after reviewing those materials, as well as any responsive filings from Petitioner, the Court believes

oral arguments would be beneficial, they will be scheduled. However, it would be premature to

schedule oral arguments at this time. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion for oral argument

without prejudice. No additional motions need to be filed with respect to this issue. 

B

Next, Petitioner asks for leave to amend his habeas petition to supplement his request for

relief. In his original petition, petitioner requested that the Court “[g]rant his petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus directing specific performance of his guilty plea pursuant to Santobello v. New York,

404 U.S. 257; 30 L.Ed 427 (1971).” Pet. at 12. Petitioner now asks the court to grant “him a writ

of habeas corpus to establish him choice of preference as to the obvious breach of the plea

1:09-cv-10244-TLL-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 1844
1

This opinion amends and supersedes the original opinion cited to by petitioner in his

motion (i.e., Lebron v. Sanders, 553 F.3d 152 (2d. Cir. 2009)). 

-3-

agreement in accordance with clearly established federal precedent under Santobello, and as an

alternative [grant] such other relief as may be appropriate . . . .” Mot. to Amend at 4. 

Petitioner’s motion to amend was received by this Court on March 18, 2009 [Dkt. # 4].

Respondent filed its first responsive pleading, a motion for summary judgment, on August 12, 2009

[Dkt. # 9]. Petitioner is permitted to amend his pleadings once as a matter of course at any time

before he is served with a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). Petitioner filed his

motion to amend prior to receiving a responsive pleading, and was therefore still permitted to amend

his pleading once as a matter of course when his motion for leave to amend was filed. Accordingly,

Petitioner’s motion will be granted and the motion to amend his pleading [Dkt. # 4] will be treated

as a supplement to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. # 1]. 

C

Finally, Petitioner has filed a motion for “Access to Case Authorities Available only in

Electronic Databases (Lexis & Westlaw) and Other Access-Limited Publications.” Petitioner alleges

that he does not have access to cases that are available only on electronic databases like Lexis and

Westlaw, or are otherwise unavailable in the prison’s library. He further alleges that if such cases

form the basis of this Court’s decision or the state’s opposition to his position it will hamper his

opportunity “to understand and assert [his] legal rights.” See Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76, 78

(2nd Cir. 2009);1 Davis v. Lafler, No. 2:07-CV-11900, 2009 WL 2462580 (Aug. 11, 2009); Rashad

v. Lafler, No. 2:08-CV-14983, 2009 WL 980790 (Apr. 10, 2009). Because it appears that petitioner

lacks access to these electronic databases at the prison library, respondent’s counsel shall provide

1:09-cv-10244-TLL-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 1845
-4-

petitioner with paper copies of any unpublished decisions, or decision otherwise unavailable to

Petitioner, on which respondent’s counsel has supported its pleadings. 

Petitioner also asserts the prison library lacks certain common case reporters. Consequently,

cases cited to any reporter listed below should be considered “unavailable” to Petitioner. Those

reporters are: 

The United States Supreme Court Reporter, Volumes 1- 89 (prior to 1970);

Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Volumes 1-420 (prior to 1970);

Federal Supplement, 1st Series, Volumes 1-306 (prior to 1970);

Michigan Reports, Volumes 1-377 (prior to 1986); and

Michigan Appeals Reports, Volumes 1-147 (prior to 1986).

The Court will similarly produce paper copies of cases on which it has relied that are unavailable

to Petitioner. Respondent’s counsel does not appear to have cited any unavailable cases in its

motion for summary judgment, and therefore no remedial action is required to comply with this

order. 

III

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for oral argument [Dkt. #2] is

DENIED without prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to amend his habeas petition [Dkt. #4] is

GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for access to case authorities [Dkt. # 5] is

GRANTED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: September 24, 2009

1:09-cv-10244-TLL-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 1846
-5-

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 September 24, 2009

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-10244-TLL-VMM Doc # 13 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 1847