Morris v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 44

ORDER (1) OVERRULING petitioner's 43 objection and appeal; and (2) that petitioner's RENEWED MOTION to Protect Grand Jury records is DENIED, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 11/30/12. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
GEORGE HOEY MORRIS,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:11-cv-926-MEF
(WO – Do Not Publish)

ORDER
On October 31, 2011, the Magistrate Judge entered an order denying Petitioner’s
Request for Portion of Grand-Jury Transcripts. (Doc. #6.) Petitioner objected to and
appealed that order to this Court. (Doc. #11.) On December 22, 2011, having found no
“particularized need” for the requested material, this Court overruled Petitioner’s objection
to and appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s October 31, 2011 order and denied Petitioner’s
request for a portion of the grand jury transcripts. (Doc. #16.)
On October 31, 2012, recognizing that Petitioner’s objection to and appeal of the
October 31, 2011 order also contained a Motion to Protect Grand Jury Transcripts (Doc.
#11), the Magistrate Judge entered a separate order denying Petitioner’s motion to protect
grand jury transcripts. (Doc. #41.) Petitioner again objected to and appealed that decision
to this Court and renewed his Motion to Protect Grand Jury Records. (Doc. #43.)
As this Court previously stated, a party seeking disclosure of grand jury transcripts
must show a “particularized need” for the material. See Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Shops
NW., 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979). Once again, Petitioner has failed to allege or otherwise

demonstrate any need, much less a credible and “particularized need,” for the requested
materials. Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate any legitimate basis for this Court to take
some unspecified, extra measure to protect the grand jury records in the Petitioner’s criminal
proceedings.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)

that Petitioner’s Objection and Appeal (Doc. #43) is OVERRULED; and

(2)

that Petitioner’s Renewed Motion to Protect Grand Jury Records (Doc. #43)

is DENIED.
DONE this the 30th day of November, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2