Clark v. Falkenrath

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

VANCE ROY CLARK, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) No. 4:23-cv-01284-SRC ) DORIS FALKENRATH, ) ) Respondent. )

Memorandum and Order

Pro se petitioner Vance Clark moves for an order appointing a special master in this action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Clark alleges that the evidentiary materials amassed in his case warrant special-master review: (1) Missouri Highway Patrol Reports; (2) the deposition of Missouri’s criminal investigation expert; (3) Clark’s prior counsel’s testimony relating to the effectiveness of counsel; and (4) various materials relating to state-court judges who were involved in his lower court case. In some circumstances, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 allows special-master appointment in civil proceedings. But federal case law indicates this allowance does not apply in habeas corpus proceedings. See Holiday v. Johnston, 313 U.S. 342, 352 (1941) (“The Congress has seen fit to lodge in the judge the duty of investigation. . . . In view of the plain terms in which the Congressional policy is evidenced in the habeas corpus act, the courts may not substitute another more convenient mode of trial.”); see also Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1715 (2020) (Alito, J., dissenting) (explaining that the Holiday Court held “that Rule 53, which allows a court to send some issues to a ‘master,’ did not justify that practice in habeas cases; the federal habeas statute contemplated proceedings before judges, giving Rule 53 ‘no application.’” (quoting Holiday, 313 U.S. at 353)). Accordingly, the Court denies Clark’s [5] motion for appointment of special master. So ordered this 7th day of November 2023.

STEPHEN R. CLARK CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE