Flamer v. Chaffinch
| Decision Date | 04 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 87-546-JJF. |
| Citation | 774 F. Supp. 211 |
| Parties | William Henry FLAMER, Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. Darl CHAFFINCH, Raymond P. Callaway, Harold K. Brode, William H. Porter, Defendants, and Walter Redman, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Charlene D. Davis of Bayard, Handelman & Murdoch, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiff/petitioner.
John K. Welch, Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Wilmington, Del., for defendants.
Gary A. Myers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Georgetown, Del., for respondent.
The Court has presently before it a myriad of applications, both of a procedural and substantive nature.1 Petitioner William Henry Flamer has pending the following: (1) Motion Objecting to Respondents' Manner in Obtaining Official Records; (2) Motion for Order Requiring Authentication of State Court Records; (3) Motion for Reconsideration of Order dated March 18, 1991 Withdrawing the Magistrate's Rule to Show Cause Order dated March 18, 1988; (4) Motion to Expand the Record and for Leave to Take Discovery; (5) Motion for the Continued Stay of Execution; (6) Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint; (7) Motion for Order Requiring Filing of Copies of Transcripts and Related Relief; (8) Motion to Strike Exhibits; and (9) Motion by Joshua L. Simon to Withdraw as Co-Counsel for Petitioner.
Respondent Stanley W. Taylor ("Taylor") has pending the following: (1) Motion for a More Definite Statement; (2) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; and (3) Motion to Supplement Respondent's Filing Under Habeas Rule 5.
Defendants Harold K. Brode ("Brode"), Raymond Callaway ("Callaway"), Darl Chaffinch ("Chaffinch") and William H. Porter ("Porter") (collectively "the State Defendants") have pending a Motion to Dismiss.
The delayed and extensive litigation that has occurred in the state court system since 19802 has created a plethora of threshold issues in this Court regarding the "state court record."
Respondent initially sought to procure the "state court record" for purposes of Petitioner's habeas application by having it delivered from the various state courts to its attorney's office where it was contemplated that photocopies would be made for use and distribution.
When challenged by the Petitioner as to the propriety of such a procedure, without certification of such records by the state courts, Respondent defended its action by asserting that it was not required to submit certified copies of the state court records, even when it conceded that the "state court record" was required to resolve issues raised by Petitioner.
This application has also been complicated by Petitioner's inability to present a clear and straightforward petition setting out the constitutional claims Petitioner desires the Court to review.
As the Court proceeds to a discussion of the Petitioner's various motions it is helpful to keep in mind the purpose of a federal habeas application. "`We sit not to retry state cases de novo but rather to examine the proceedings in the state court to determine if there has been a violation of federal constitutional standards.'" Todaro v. Fulcomer, 944 F.2d 1079, 1082 (3d Cir.1991) (quoting Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer, 923 F.2d 284, 291 (3d Cir.1991)).
As previously mentioned, Petitioner has filed the following motions pertaining to custody of the state court records: (1) Motion for Order Requiring Authentication of State Court Records; and (2) Motion Objecting to Respondents' Manner in Obtaining Official Records. A short discussion of the factual and procedural history of these motions is appropriate.
Respondent, the State of Delaware ("Respondent") filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and a petition in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for Kent County to obtain the official state court records. The petition in the Delaware Supreme Court reads as follows:
The undersigned Gary A. Myers, Department of Justice requests permission for this court to obtain, for purposes of photocopying, the records of this Court in the above-captioned appeals. Flamer has filed a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (987-546-JJF) and pursuant to the federal rules, the State must file with that court a copy of all the state court's records. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 5.
Petition to Obtain State Court Records, February 28, 1991, Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (No. 60, 1980 & No. 216, 1987). Justice Andrew G.T. Moore, II, signed the Order granting the request on March 5, 1991.
The petition in the Superior Court is substantially the same as the petition in the Delaware Supreme Court. See Petition to Obtain State Court Records, March 4, 1991, Superior Court for the State of Delaware (Crim. A. Nos. IK79-11-0236 to 0239). President Judge Henry D. Ridgely signed the Order on March 4, 1991.
Petitioner, William Henry Flamer, acting pro se, responded by filing a Motion Objecting to Plaintiffs' Manner in Obtaining Official Records, but the records had already been given to Respondent for photocopying.
On March 15, 1991, this Court appointed counsel for Petitioner.
In response to an Order of this Court dated April 4, 1991, Respondent produced a copy of the state court records for Petitioner. Then, by letter dated April 9, 1991, Respondent informed the Court that the state court records had been returned to the clerks of the appropriate state courts.
On April 16, 1991, Petitioner filed a Motion for an Order Requiring Authentication of State Court Records and/or an Evidentiary Hearing.
On April 18, 1991, this Court held argument on Petitioner's application for an evidentiary hearing regarding the custody and authenticity of the state court records.
At the argument, in response to the Court's question as to how the practice of the State taking custody of the original state court records for photocopying purposes in habeas proceedings developed, Respondent presented an affidavit of Loren C. Myers ("Myers"), a Deputy Attorney General in the State of Delaware Department of Justice ("Department of Justice"), who is assigned to represent the State of Delaware in all federal habeas proceedings. Affidavit of Loren C. Myers ("Affid.") (D.I. 60).
The affidavit of Mr. Myers states that prior to June 1984, prosecutors representing the State in federal habeas proceedings would obtain an order from the Delaware Superior Court authorizing them to obtain temporary custody of the state court records in order to permit the State to file the original state court record with the Clerk of the District Court. Affid. at ¶ 4. Mr. Myers stated that he ceased this practice in June of 1984 because original state court records had been lost by "federal judicial personnel" in two separate habeas proceedings. See Affid. at ¶¶ 5-7. Mr. Myers then stated the present policy of the Department of Justice:
If a copy of those documents is not available in Department of Justice files, I obtain temporary custody of the Superior Court or Supreme Court file and photocopy two sets of the relevant documents. I then return the original record to the state court and file one set of the photocopied documents with the Clerk of the District Court; I retain, as part of my case file, the other set of the photocopied documents. I have used this procedure in an estimated 200 to 220 federal habeas actions, and at no point has the United States Magistrate, any district judge, or any circuit judge indicated that the procedure is unacceptable.
Affid. at ¶ 8. Respondent did not indicate any statutory authority for such a procedure.
The Court concludes that any state court records required to be filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 et seq., as well as any state court records ordered to be produced by the Court, must be produced in certified form. See Wilson v. Redman, C.A. No. 89-004-MMS, 1991 WL 226017 (D.Del. August 20, 1991), at 8-11.
Title 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(f) reads as follows:
A copy of the official records of the State court, duly certified by the clerk of such court to be a true and correct copy of a finding, judicial opinion, or other reliable written indicia showing such a factual determination by the State court, shall be admissible in the Federal court proceeding.
(emphasis added).
The Court further concludes that Section 2254(f) clearly requires that a certified copy of the state court record3 be produced in a federal habeas proceeding. The remaining question is whether Respondent is required to produce a copy of the entire record of the state court proceedings, or selected portions thereof.
Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states in pertinent part:
The answer shall indicate what transcripts (of pretrial, trial, sentencing, and post-conviction proceedings) are available.... There shall be attached to the answer such portions of the transcripts as the answering party deems relevant. The court on its own motion or upon request of the petitioner may order that further portions of the existing transcript be furnished....
The Court concludes that Rule 5 must be read together with 28 U.S.C. Section 2254(f).4 The Court further concludes that a reading consistent with both of the two statutory provisions requires that the only portions of the state court record that Respondent must produce in certified form are (1) "such portions of the transcripts as the answering party deems relevant"; and (2) portions of the record ordered by the Court "on its own motion or upon request of the petitioner."
The Court will grant the Respondent until October 7, 1991...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeShields v. Snyder
...706 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied sub nom., O'Bryan v. McKaskle, 465 U.S. 1013, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984); Flamer v. Chaffinch, 774 F.Supp. 211, 217 (D.Del.1991). There is no question that irreparable injury may result if the stay is not granted. O'Bryan, 691 F.2d at 708; Flamer,......
- Tyler v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
-
Trice v. Frakes
...court records that the responding party deems relevant as well as portions of the record ordered by the court. See Flamer v. Chaffinch, 774 F. Supp. 211, 215 (D. Del. 1991). Here, the court directed Respondent to file "any state court records that are necessary to support the motion [for su......
-
Rhone v. Larkins
...to submit these documents. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 5; Flamer v. Chaffinch, 774 F. Supp. 211, 215 (D. Del. 1991). Aside from briefs and ordersnot at issue here, counsel for the Commonwealth was responsible only for "attach[ing] to the......