Bradley v. Turner

• Decision Date: 11 October 2012
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1504
• Parties: GREGORY E. BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. NEIL TURNER, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

GREGORY E. BRADLEY, Petitioner,

v.NEIL TURNER, et al., Respondents.

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-1504

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Dated: October 11, 2012

JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER

MAGISTRATE JUDGE GREG WHITE

ORDER

Petitioner, Gregory E. Bradley ("Bradley"), challenges the constitutionality of his conviction in the case of State v. Bradley, Van Wert County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR09-03-038. Bradley, pro se, filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on May 16, 2012. Simultaneously, he filed a motion to stay the proceedings. (Doc. No. 3.) On June 22, 2012, the case was dismissed without prejudice pending exhaustion of state court remedies. (Doc. No. 5.) On July 5, 2012, the Court granted Bradley's motion to reopen. (Doc. Nos. 6 & 7.)

Currently pending before the Court are the following motions filed by Bradley:

(1) Motion for Discovery under Fed. Crim. R. 16 requesting the State to provide a copy of the grand jury transcripts to him. (Doc. No. 9.)

(2) Motion to Compel North Central Correctional Complex to Forward Indigent Pro Se Prisoners' Legal Mail. (Doc. No. 11.) Respondent filed an opposition brief. (Doc. No. 17.)

(3) Motion requesting Summary Judgment by seeking to have his sentence vacated based upon actual innocence and the failure of the State of Ohio to respond timely. (Doc. No. 14.) Respondent opposed. (Doc. No. 18.)

(4) Motion to strike Respondent's request for an extension of time to file Return of Writ.¹ (Doc. No. 15.) Respondent opposed. (Doc. No. 18.)

(5) Motion to expand the record under Rule 7. (Doc. No. 24.)

On September 11, 2012, Warden Neil Turner ("Respondent") filed his Answer/Return of Writ. (Doc. No. 20.) Bradley did not file a Traverse, but filed the above motion to expand the record in which he requested the Court to "equitabl[y] toll" the time to file his Traverse until after the complete record is filed. (Doc. No. 24-1 at 2.) This matter is before the Court pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. For the reasons that follow, the motions are denied in part.

A. Pending Motions

(1) Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 9.)

Bradley requests a copy of the Grand Jury Transcripts as he believes that the grand jury considered "secret" evidence and that police reports were "falsified" and "selectively edited." (Doc. No. 9 at 10.) Specifically, Bradley contends that he has shown a "particularized need" in order to disprove two arguments made by the prosecutor in appellate briefs as follows:

(1) State v. King, 2002, Ohio 1423, 2002 WL 579159 (Ohio App. 3 Dist.): "Each of the Eyewitness [sic] offered slightly different versions of the facts between their statements to the police and their trial testimony, and from one Eyewitness to another, there was no evidence that the prosecutor created, supported, or enhanced the Factual Inconsistencies in the witness statements. Defendant argues that Slight Discrepancies between Police Report, Testimony, and his self-serving statement proves witness perjured themselves.

(2) The Police Report had nothing to do with the Appellant's Grand Jury Indictment Rendered and the Medical Expert's Testimony speeks [sic] for itself.

(Doc. No. 9 at 1-3.) Bradley contends the first argument was made in the State's responsive brief to Bradley's petition to vacate or set aside judgment filed with the Third Judicial District. (Doc. No. 42.) It is not clear where the second argument was made as Bradley indicates it was taken from an Exhibit A, but provided no further information.

On September 7, 2012, Respondent addressed the discovery motion indicating that the request was premature, but that the issue would be addressed in the Answer. (Doc. No. 18 at 5-6.) Subsequently, Respondent indicated in the Answer that Bradley's Petition can be decided from the record without further discovery or hearing. (Doc. No. 20 at 38.)

Pursuant to Rule 6(a) and (b) of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts, a judge may authorize, for good cause, a party to conduct discovery, and the court may limit the extent of discovery. As a federal court expressed:

A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course." Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 138 L. Ed. 2d 97 (1997). Instead, a habeas petitioner is entitled to discovery only if the district judge "in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave" to conduct discovery. Rule 6 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. To establish "good cause" for discovery, a habeas petitioner must establish that the requested discovery will develop facts which will enable him or her to demonstrate that he or she is entitled to habeas relief. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09. The burden is on the petitioner to establish the materiality of the requested discovery. See Stanford v. Parker, 266 F. 3d 442, 460 (6th Cir. 2001).

Until this Court reviews the petition for writ of habeas corpus, respondent's answer to the habeas petition, and petitioner's reply brief, "it is impossible to evaluate what, if any, discovery is needed and whether the discovery is relevant and appropriately narrow." Gengler v. United States ex rel. Dept. of Defense & Navy, 463 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1114-15 (E.D. Cal. 2006); See also Shaw v. White, No. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69972, 2007 WL 2752372, * 3 (E.D. Mich. September 21, 2007).

Brown v. Aud, 2011 U.S. Dist LEXIS 90522, *1-2 (E. D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2011).

Moreover, an accused is not generally entitled to grand jury transcripts unless required by the ends of justice and unless he shows a particular need for disclosure. United States v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 682 (1958); Garret v. Moore, 2007 WL 315093, *10 (S.D. Ohio. Jan. 30, 2007); Blalock v. Wilson, 2006 WL 1866666 (N.D. Ohio June 30, 2006); United States v. Tennyson, 88 F.R.D. 119, 121 (E.D. Tenn. 1980). Grand jury material may be disclosed when it appears that failure to do so will deny the defendant a fair trial. Blalock, 2006 WL 1866666; State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 173 (1985). The particularized need requirement is not satisfied by a generalized request to inspect grand jury testimony. Tennyson, 88 F.R.D. at 121.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the prosecution to disclose evidence in its possession that is both favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); see also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 57 (1987) (plurality opinion); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 674 (1985). A "defendant's right to discover exculpatory evidence does not include the unsupervised authority to search through the [States's] files." Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 59; see also Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977). The purpose of Brady is not to displace the adversary system as theprimary means to uncover the truth, but rather to ensure that a miscarriage of justice does not occur. Bagley, 473 U.S. at 675. Therefore, the prosecutor is not required to deliver his entire file to defense counsel, but only to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Id.

Here, the Court, after reviewing the Petition and the Answer, finds that grand jury testimony will not assist Bradley in pursuing his grounds for relief. More importantly, Bradley has neither demonstrated good cause nor a particularized need. He asserts in a conclusory fashion that because he is innocent, there could be no eyewitnesses, as referenced in the State's first argument. In its brief, the State, however, simply analogized the King case to the instant case arguing that "[a]s in King, each witness in the instant case was subject to searching cross-examination to expose the weaknesses and discrepancies in their testimony." (Doc. No. 22-2 at 732.)

Nonetheless, because Bradley has not filed a Traverse, and he is seeking an extension of time to do so, the Court will deny the motion for discovery without prejudice in the event Bradley is able to demonstrate good cause or a particularized need through his Traverse.

(2) Motion to Compel North Central Correctional Complex to Forward Indigent, Pro Se Prisoner's Legal Mail to the Court. (Doc. No. 11.)

Bradley claims that the prison is interfering with the mailing of legal mail thereby denying him the right of access to the court and due process of law. (Doc. No. 11 at 1.) Specifically, Bradley requests the Court to order Respondent to forward his legal mail for filing, to stop interfering with his legal mail, and to stop him from being harassed. Id. Bradley also contends that the prison refuses to send his mail because of insufficient funds in his inmate account.² Id. at 2. Bradley argues that by doing so, the prison is circumventing the federal mail box rule and denying him the right of access to the Court. Id. Bradley asserts that because of hisnumerous legal filings, prison officials are retaliating against him by conducting random shakedowns of his cubicle. Id. at 3. Lastly, Bradley contends that the prison library has limited hours, which also is denying him the right of access to the Court. Id. at 4.

Prisoners have a constitutional right to "adequate, effective and meaningful" access to the courts which extends to direct appeals, habeas corpus petitions and civil rights claims only. Perotti v. Medlin, 2009 WL 2424547, *12 Case No. 4:05cv2739 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 2009), citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821-24, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491 (1977); Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 391 (6th Cir. 1999), citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 353, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996) (citations omitted). In order to sustain a claim of denial of access to the courts, a petitioner must allege an actual injury. Perotti, citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. In order to show actual injury in this context, a prisoner must...