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 ON MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY
This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner Robert Boyd under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
is before the Court on two motions by Petitioner for discovery: 	Motion for Leave to Conduct
Discovery (ECF No. 31), and Motion for Written Depositions (ECF No. 30)
Petitioner seeks to have written questions posed to Ray Boggs, Jr.; Ryan Skeens; Gabbie
Maytas; Patrick Howie; Kiel Jones; Royce Craft; Danny Sabelli; Josh Hensley; Ethan Smith; and
Isyss Boyd. He also seeks very substantial discovery of additional materials related to the case.
Petitioner recognizes the applicability of 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 (6th Cir. 2024),
quoting Mitchell v. Genovese, 974 F.3d 638, 647 (6th Cir. 2020). However, he argues
However, there are circumstances under which a Federal Habeas
courts 	consideration 	of 	new 	evidence 	does 	not 	contravene
Case: 1:25-cv-00455-JPH-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 12/09/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Pinholster. These include "if the Court determines from the existing
record that the state courts' decision was unreasonable under
§2254(d); if a claim was not adjudicated on the merits but is
otherwise properly before the Court for habeas review; or if the
Court is considering whether to excuse a procedural default.
(ECF No. 31, PageID 2709). 	In support of the proposition that Pinholster does not preclude
discovery here, Petitioner cites Caudill v. Collier, 871 F. Supp. 2d 639 (E.D. Ky. 2012), but the
Magistrate Judge writing that opinion did not actually grant discovery. While this Court agrees
that there are situations in which Pinholster would not preclude new evidence – e.g. in support of
a gateway claim of actual innocence, Petitioner has not shown and of the conditions mentioned
exists in this case. 	The undersigned has filed a Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 29)
recommending that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice and without finding any of the
circumstances in which Pinholster might not apply.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery and Motion for Written Depositions are
DENIED.
December 9, 2025.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00455-JPH-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 12/09/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>