Opinion ID: 1450597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Beuke's Evidentiary Motions

Text: Beuke argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying (1) his motion to expand the record pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, (2) his motion to expand the record pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, (3) his motion for leave to conduct discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, and (4) his request for an evidentiary hearing. Even though Beuke commenced this habeas action in May 1994, he did not file his motions to expand the record or motion for leave to conduct discovery until September 1995, less than one month before the district court issued its order dismissing his habeas petition. Moreover, Beuke did not file a formal motion requesting an evidentiary hearing; instead this request was tucked deep within his lengthy habeas petition.
Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, as it existed when Beuke filed his habeas petition, provided that [t]he court on its own motion or upon request of the petitioner may order that further portions of the existing transcripts be furnished or that certain portions of the non-transcribed proceedings be transcribed and furnished. The former version of Rule 7 similarly stated: [T]he judge may direct that the record be expanded by the parties by the inclusion of additional materials relevant to the determination of the merits of the petition. We have recognized that expansion of the record in habeas cases is not mandatory. . . and is left to the discretion of the trial judge. Ford v. Seabold, 841 F.2d 677, 691 (6th Cir.1988). We review the district court's denial of a motion to expand the record for abuse of discretion. Id. In his motions to expand the record, Beuke sought to introduce (1) nine documents referenced in the state court trial transcripts, (2) all prior statements that Michael Cahill and other prosecution witnesses made to the authorities, and (3) background information regarding Robert Craig. Beuke asserted that the prosecution failed to provide him with most of these documents prior to trial and that these documents were essential to his Brady claim. The district court denied both of Beuke's motions to expand the record. The court's order reviewed the procedural history of the case, noting that at the time the parties were compiling the record before the district court, the court explicitly directed Beuke's counsel to make a thorough review of the eight volume appendix. . . and advise [the state's] counsel . . . of any documents not included in the appendix which [were] relevant to a claim in the federal habeas corpus petition[.] Counsel for both parties thereafter stated that they had reached agreement as to the documents [Beuke] sought to include in the appendix. More than three months later, however, Beuke's counsel filed these motions to expand the record. After reviewing this procedural history, the district court reasoned: [Beuke] has failed to make any showing that the [proffered] documents . . . are necessary to a full and fair consideration of his claims by this Court. [Beuke] had the opportunity to make the documents. . . part of the record at trial and on direct appeal but failed to do so. He has made no showing of cause for that failure, nor has he demonstrated that inclusion of the documents in the record before this Court would establish his right to relief in federal habeas corpus.. . . Most of the documents go to the alleged unreliability of Michael Cahill and to alleged inconsistencies between his prior statements or the statements of other persons and Cahill's trial testimony. None of the alleged inconsistencies goes to a fact material to [Beuke's] conviction. . . . Briefly summarized, the evidence of [Beuke's] guilt is overwhelming. [The district court then summarized the wealth of physical evidence against Beuke.] We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Beuke's motions to expand the record. Beuke's counsel had adequate opportunities to include the proffered documents in the record; the district court even instructed him to advise [the state's] counsel . . . of any documents not included in the appendix which [were] relevant to his claims. More importantly, Beuke did not demonstrate how these documents would further any of his constitutional claims. In his motions to expand the record, Beuke primarily argued that these documents would support his Brady claim. We have already concluded that these proffered documents do not satisfy Brady's materiality requirement, and thus affirm the district court's finding that these documents would not have furthered Beuke's Brady claim. Consequently the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Beuke's motions to expand the record. [10]
Habeas petitioners have no right to automatic discovery. Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir.2001). Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, as it existed when Beuke filed his habeas petition, stated that [a] party shall be entitled to invoke the processes of discovery . . . if, and to the extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so[.] We review the district court's denial of a discovery request for abuse of discretion. Stanford, 266 F.3d at 460. In his motion for leave to conduct discovery, Beuke presented numerous requests for documents and depositions. The evidence requested in the motion for leave to conduct discovery sought the same information requested in the motions to expand the record. The district court denied the discovery motion for the same reasons it denied the motions to expand the record, namely, because Beuke had not established that the requested discovery was unavailable during direct appeal, and because Beuke had not shown that the requested discovery would uncover evidence of a constitutional violation. For the same reasons we found that the district did not abuse its discretion by denying the motions to expand the record, we likewise find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for leave to conduct discovery. See Williams, 380 F.3d at 976 (finding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a petitioner's request to conduct discovery where the petitioner did not show that the requested discovery could yield evidence enabling [him] to prevail on his [habeas] claim).
Beuke did not file a separate motion requesting an evidentiary hearing, but merely inserted this request in one sentence on the second-to-last page of his 306-page amended habeas petition, unaccompanied by any supporting argument. The district court  apparently unmoved by Beuke's undeveloped request for a hearing  dismissed Beuke's habeas petition without holding the requested hearing. Shortly after the court dismissed the petition, Beuke filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, arguing among other things that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing prior to adjudicating his petition. The court denied this motion because Beuke did not demonstrate his entitlement to an evidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Under pre-AEDPA law, a district court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing unless one of the eight circumstances listed in [former] 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) is present. McMillan v. Barksdale, 823 F.2d 981, 983 (6th Cir.1987) (citing Loveday v. Davis, 697 F.2d 135 (6th Cir.1983)). These circumstances include: (1) when a factual dispute is not resolved in state court; (2) when the state court's factfinding procedure is inadequate to afford a full and fair hearing; (3) when material facts are not adequately developed in state court; (4) when the state court lacks jurisdiction; (5) when the state court fails to appoint counsel; (6) when the petitioner does not receive an adequate hearing in state court; (7) when the petitioner is denied due process in state court; and (8) when the district court determines that a material fact determination is not fairly supported by the record. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1994). These circumstances must be shown by the petitioner, admitted by the State, or `otherwise appear' from the record. McMillan, 823 F.2d at 984. The district court did not err by denying Beuke's habeas petition without first holding an evidentiary hearing. Beuke did not demonstrate to the district court that any of the eight circumstances under former 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) were satisfied; in fact Beuke did not present any argument to the district court on his request for an evidentiary hearing. Moreover, our independent review of the record confirms that none of these requisite circumstances were satisfied, and we thus conclude that the district court did not err in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Ford, 841 F.2d at 691.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.