Gardiner v. Warden Bauman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEITH EDWARD GARDINER,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN BAUMAN,
Respondent.
2:22-CV-12304-TGB-EAS
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO SET
ASIDE OPINION DENYING
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF NO. 26)
This is a habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 8,
2025, the Court entered an Opinion and Order denying Gardiner’s claims
on the merits, dismissing the Petition, and closing the case. ECF No. 23.
Now 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Petitioner 	Keith 	Edward 	Gardiner’s
October 28, 2025 Motion to Set Aside the Opinion and Order Denying the
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 26. Gardiner argues that
the Court should have ruled on his motion for evidentiary hearing to
develop his Fourth Amendment claim prior to considering the merits of
the habeas petition.1 For the reasons discussed, the motion is DENIED.
1 	The Court notes that Gardiner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing
was docketed on October 8, 2025, the same day the Court entered the
judgment denying the Petition. See ECF No. 25. Although Gardiner
contends that he filed his motion six days earlier, the Court could not
Case 2:22-cv-12304-TGB-EAS ECF No. 30, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 3

2
On November 4, 2025, Gardiner filed a notice of appeal of the
Court’s October 8, 2025 Opinion and Order. ECF No. 28. Accordingly, the
Court 	lacks 	jurisdiction 	to 	consider 	Gardiner’s 	motion 	for
reconsideration. A notice of appeal generally “confers jurisdiction on the
court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects
of the case involved in the appeal.” Marrese v. American Academy of
Orthopaedic 	Surgeons, 	470 	U.S. 	373, 	379 	(1985) 	(citing 	Griggs 	v.
Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam));
see also Workman v. Tate, 958 F.2d 164, 167 (6th Cir. 1992). Because
Gardiner has filed a notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction to
amend its original opinion and order to consider the merits of his case.
Workman, 958 F.2d at 167–68; see also Raum v. Norwood, 93 F. App’x
693, 695 (6th Cir. 2004) (plaintiffs deprived district court of jurisdiction
over their motion for reconsideration by filing notice of appeal before
district court had chance to make decision on motion to reconsider).
Even assuming arguendo that the Court could reach the merits of
the motion, Gardiner would not have been entitled to an evidentiary
hearing on his Fourth Amendment claim. It is within the district court’s
discretion to determine whether a habeas petitioner is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing. Brofford v. Marshall, 751 F.2d 845, 853 (6th Cir.
1985). When deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal
have considered the motion because it was not pending before the Court
prior to entering the judgment.
Case 2:22-cv-12304-TGB-EAS ECF No. 30, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 3

3
court must consider whether such a hearing could enable the habeas
petitioner to prove the petition’s factual allegations, which, if true, would
entitle the petitioner to federal habeas relief on his claim or claims.
Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007). “[B]ecause the deferential
standards prescribed by § 2254 control whether to grant habeas relief, a
federal court must take into account those standards in deciding whether
an evidentiary hearing is appropriate.” Id. If the record refutes the
habeas petitioner’s factual allegations or otherwise precludes habeas
relief, a district court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. Id.
In this case, an evidentiary hearing was not required. The Court
ruled in its Opinion and Order that Gardiner’s Fourth Amendment claim
was barred from federal habeas review. See ECF No. 23, PageID.2772–
73. Because habeas relief was clearly precluded, an evidentiary hearing
would have been unwarranted.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion to Set Aside the
Opinion and Order Denying the Petition., ECF No. 26. This case remains
closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Terrence G. Berg_________________
TERRENCE G. BERG
Dated: November 24, 2025 	UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-12304-TGB-EAS ECF No. 30, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 3