UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KETJOL MANOKU, 

 Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 09-11511 

 

ROBERT NAPEL, Honorable Patrick J. Duggan 

 Respondent. 

___________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS TO EXPAND 

THE RECORD, TO HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, 

AND TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FACTS 

 Petitioner Ketjol Manoku (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se habeas corpus 

petition challenging his Oakland County convictions for first-degree murder, 

conspiracy to commit murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and felony 

firearm. Currently pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions to expand the 

record, to hold an evidentiary hearing, and to take judicial notice of facts. 

The Motion to Expand the Record 

 In his motion to expand the record, Petitioner seeks permission to file (1) an 

affidavit that he signed on July 3, 2013 and (2) his Albanian military records. 

Petitioner claims that his affidavit will provide the Court with an accurate set of 

facts and will supplement the assertions that he makes in his reply brief. 

2:09-cv-11511-PJD-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 02/18/14 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 4496
2 

 Petitioner’s affidavit is already on file, as he attached it to his reply brief. 

See ECF No. 23. Thus, Petitioner’s request to file his affidavit is denied as moot. 

 Petitioner wants to submit his military records to explain why he fired 

multiple shots during the criminal incident. He claims that the military records 

will add credence to his self-defense claim and will demonstrate that he did not 

premeditate or deliberate his actions, but acted out of a conditioned response, 

which he learned in the military. 

 The Court finds it unnecessary to see Petitioner’s military records, because it 

is not the Court’s duty to retry Petitioner or to determine whether he acted in selfdefense or premeditated the crime. See Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371, 377, 

92 S. Ct. 2174, 2178 (1972) (stating that “[t]he writ of habeas corpus has limited 

scope; the federal courts do not sit to re-try state cases de novo but, rather, to 

review for violation of federal constitutional standards”). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to expand the record (ECF No. 

24) is DENIED. 

The Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing

 In his next motion, Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing. He disputes the 

factual basis for the State’s arguments and contends that he was denied a full and 

fair evidentiary hearing in state court. 

2:09-cv-11511-PJD-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 02/18/14 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 4497
3 

 The provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 

(AEDPA) govern this case, and 

AEDPA 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. __, __, 131 

S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011)]; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 

Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 464 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 

__ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 141 (2012). If a state court did not adjudicate the 

petitioner’s claims on the merits, the question is whether the petitioner failed to 

develop the factual basis for his claim in state court. Id. at 464-65 (explaining the 

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)).1

 And, “[i]n cases where an applicant for 

 

1

 Section 2254(e)(2) reads: 

(2) If the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in 

State court proceedings, the court shall not hold an evidentiary 

hearing on the claim unless the applicant shows that-- 

(A) the claim relies on-- 

(i) a new rule of constitutional law, made 

retroactive to cases on collateral review by 

the Supreme Court, that was previously 

unavailable; or 

(ii) a factual predicate that could not have 

been previously discovered through the 

exercise of due diligence; and 

2:09-cv-11511-PJD-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 02/18/14 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 4498
4 

federal habeas relief is not barred from obtaining an evidentiary hearing by 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), the decision to grant such a hearing rests in the discretion of 

the district court.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 468, 127 S. Ct. 1933, 1937 

(2007). 

 Some of Petitioner’s habeas claims were adjudicated on the merits in state 

court. As to those claims, an evidentiary hearing is not permitted, because this 

Court’s review is limited to the record that was before the state court. Pinholster, 

131 S. Ct. at 1398; Keeling, 673 F.3d at 464. And, even if the Court were to 

assume that Petitioner is not barred from obtaining an evidentiary hearing on his 

other claims, the Court does not believe an evidentiary hearing is warranted at this 

time. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 25) 

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will reconsider Petitioner’s 

motion if, after reviewing the state court record, the Court determines that 

Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing and that an evidentiary hearing is 

 

(B) the facts underlying the claim would be sufficient to 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that but for 

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found 

the applicant guilty of the underlying offense. 

2:09-cv-11511-PJD-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 02/18/14 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 4499
5 

necessary for a proper resolution of Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner need not file 

another motion for an evidentiary hearing. 

The Motion to Take Judicial Notice

 In his third and final motion, Petitioner asks the Court to take judicial notice 

that: (1) at the time of his trial, the State of Michigan did not comply with Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding access to foreign-language interpreters 

during criminal court proceedings; (2) the Department of Justice launched a probe 

in February 2011 amid complaints that Michigan courts were failing to provide 

interpreters for people with limited English proficiency; (3) as of September 11, 

2013, all Michigan courts were required to provide foreign-language interpreters to 

every person with limited English proficiency; and (4) the Michigan Supreme 

Court recently enacted court rules to bring the State of Michigan into compliance 

with federal law. Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice of these facts 

and to apply the facts to the Court’s analysis of his sixth habeas claim, which 

alleges that the trial court failed to ascertain with certainty that he did not need a 

bilingual interpreter. 

 Respondent argues in his supplemental answer to the habeas petition that 

Petitioner’s sixth claim is procedurally defaulted. As such, it may be unnecessary 

to adjudicate the merits of Petitioner’s claim regarding a bilingual interpreter. 

 Accordingly, 

2:09-cv-11511-PJD-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 02/18/14 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 4500
6 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to take judicial notice of certain 

adjudicative facts (ECF No. 26) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE until the 

Court renders a decision on the procedural default issue. If the Court determines 

that Petitioner’s sixth claim has not been procedurally defaulted, the Court will 

reconsider Petitioner’s motion. Petitioner need not file another motion asking the 

Court to take judicial notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 18, 2014 

 

 s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: 

Ketjol Manoku, #597394 

Marquette Branch Prison 

1960 U.S. Highway 41 South 

Marquette, Michigan 49855 

Bruce H. Edwards, A.A.G.

2:09-cv-11511-PJD-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 02/18/14 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 4501