Boyd v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
ROBERT BOYD,
Petitioner, 	: 	Case No. 1:25-cv-00455
- vs - 	District Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN, Madison Correctional
Institution,
:
Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by petitioner Robert Boyd pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 25) and
Requests for the Production of Documents (ECF No. 26).
The Requests for the Production of Documents are directed to Warden Hildebrand and
purport to be made under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	However, discovery in habeas
corpus cases is not governed by those Rules, but by the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings (the
“Habeas Rules”).
A habeas petitioner or § 2255 movant is not entitled to discovery as a matter of course, but
only upon a fact-specific showing of good cause and in the Court’s exercise of discretion. Rule
6(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Rule 6(a), Rules Governing § 2255 Cases; Bracy v. Gramley,
Case: 1:25-cv-00455-JPH-MRM Doc #: 27 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
520 U.S. 899 (1997); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (1969); Byrd v. Collins, 209 F.3d 486, 515-
16 (6th Cir. 2000).
Before determining whether discovery is warranted, the Court must first identify the
essential elements of the claim on which discovery is sought. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904, citing United
States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). The burden of demonstrating the materiality of
the information requested is on the moving party. Stanford v. Parker, 266 F.3d 442, 460 (6th Cir.
2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 831 (2002), citing Murphy v. Johnson, 205 F.3d 809, 813-15 (5th Cir.
2000). “Even in a death penalty case, ‘bald assertions and conclusory allegations do not provide
sufficient ground to warrant requiring the state to respond to discovery or require an evidentiary
hearing.’” Bowling v. Parker, 344 F.3d 487, 512 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 842 (2004),
quoting Stanford, 266 F.3d at 460.
Boyd’s Requests presume Warden Hildebrand has the requested documents in her
possession, but that is highly unlikely; Ohio wardens do not become custodians of relevant
evidentiary material in the cases of prisoners they hold.
Moreover, Boyd has not demonstrated that these documents would be material to deciding
this case. 	Habeas corpus courts are limited to the record that was before the last state court to
consider a case. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011). Pinholster bars a federal court “from
admitting new evidence upon which to assess the reasonableness of a state court's constitutional
analysis.” Upshaw v. Stephenson, 97 F. 4 th 365, 372 (6 th Cir. 2024), quoting Mitchell v. Genovese,
974 F.3d 638, 647 (6th Cir. 2020).
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Requests for the Production of Documents are DENIED.
Case: 1:25-cv-00455-JPH-MRM Doc #: 27 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Petitioner also moves for an extension of time to file his reply/traverse. That pleading was
due to be filed by November 24, 2025, and the Court previously gave Petitioner notice of that due
date (ECF No. 22). Petitioner’s time to file a reply is hereby extended to and including December
15, 2025.
November 25, 2025.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00455-JPH-MRM Doc #: 27 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>