USA v. Hollis

Filing 179

Order on Motion for Discovery, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, Order on Motion to Continue, Order on Motion to Unseal Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
ARTHUR HOLLIS,
Defendant.

3:04-cr-00140-HRH-JDR
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY [173],
MOTION TO UNSEAL [175] &
NON-OPPOSED MOTION TO
CONTINUE EVIDENTIARY
HEARING [176] AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S NON-OPPOSED
MOTION FOR EXTENSION [177]

Defendant Hollis, by and through counsel, filed a Request for Discovery
at Docket 173 and a Motion to Unseal at Docket 175.
The Court first considers Defendant’s discovery requests. “Petitioners
in habeas corpus proceedings, as the Congress and [the Supreme Court] have
emphasized . . . are entitled to careful consideration and plenary processing of their

claims including full opportunity for presentation of relevant facts.”1 It is in this
framework that the Court must approach Defendant’s discovery requests. The court,
however, must not allow the Defendant to simply engage in a fishing expedition for
the sake of turning up new potential 2255 claims.
In his first motion, Defendant moves the court to grant him permission,
under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, to depose trial counsel Rex
Butler and Lance Wells stating they have been uncooperative with defense counsel.
While the court may “authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure or Civil Procedure,”2 “discovery is available only in the
discretion of the court and for good cause shown.”3 “[T]here is no general right to
discovery in habeas proceedings.”4
Defendant desires to depose Mr. Butler and Mr. Wells in order to review
case files and billing records prior to the scheduled evidentiary hearing on
Defendant’s § 2255 motion. Depositions are not routinely granted in § 2255
matters.

The court may direct discovery as deemed necessary to properly

1

Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 298 (1969).

2

Rules Governing § 2255 Cases, 6(a).

3

Rich v. Calderon, 187 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 1999).

4

Id.

3-04-cr-140-HRH-JDR Order Re MTNS @ 173-175-176-177.wpd

2

determine the facts of a case.5 The Court determines here that the facts can
properly be discovered in court during the scheduled evidentiary hearing. And, here,
Defendant has failed to make a good cause showing why the witnesses cannot be
questioned with their records at the evidentiary hearing.
Because Defendant has failed to show good cause why the Court
should grant her leave to depose Mr. Wells and Mr. Butler, Defendant’s Request
[173] for Discovery is HEREBY DENIED.
Defendant further requests discovery in the form of unsealing
documents. Counsel fails to give any direction to the Court on how the documents
are relevant to Defendant’s stated § 2255 claims. The Court will not permit the
unsealing of documents without some showing of relevancy as “[a] habeas petitioner
will not be granted leave to conduct discovery based on allegations that are purely
speculative or without any basis in the record.”6 Similarly, requests for productions
should be denied if a Defendant does not “state what he hope[s] to find in [the]
records or how they [will] help him prosecute his section 2255 motion.”7 He may not

5

Barry v. United States, 528 F.2d 1094, 1101 (7th Cir. 1976) (“Through the
power granted by the All Writs Act, district courts may order such discovery, in
this fashion, as they deem necessary to determine the facts adequately.”).
6

Hernandez v. McDaniel, No. 3:09-cv-00545-LRH-RAM, 2009 WL 4953384
(D.Nev. Dec. 14, 2009).
7

Smith v. United States, 618 F.2d 507 (8th Cir. 1980).

3-04-cr-140-HRH-JDR Order Re MTNS @ 173-175-176-177.wpd

3

use discovery as a means to sort through documents in the hopes of discovering
something to add to his petition.8
Defendant has made no showing that any of the documents sought
have any relevancy to any of his § 2255 claims. The Motion [175] to Unseal is
HEREBY DENIED.
Defendant moves the Court to continue the Evidentiary Hearing
currently scheduled for May 17, 2010. While the motion is unopposed, Counsel fails
to give the court dates which will work for the proposed witnesses and the
government. The motion [176] is HEREBY DENIED with leave to re-file once
Counsel has conferred with defense witnesses, counsel for the Government and
chambers, and is able to recommend a proposed date for the hearing. The hearing
remains as set for May 17, 2010.
//
//
//
//

8

Weathers v. United States, 322 F.Supp. 602, 603 (D.S.C. 1970)
(Defendant was not entitled to discovery of “a full record that he may comb
through at his leisure in the hope that he may discover some possible theory for a
renewed 2255 petition.”).
3-04-cr-140-HRH-JDR Order Re MTNS @ 173-175-176-177.wpd

4

Defendant requests additional time [177] to complete the briefing due
on March 2, 2010.

The court HEREBY GRANTS the request.

Defendant’s

supplemental briefing shall be due on or before April 16, 2010.

DATED this

5th

day of March, 2010, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ John D. Roberts
JOHN D. ROBERTS
United States Magistrate Judge

3-04-cr-140-HRH-JDR Order Re MTNS @ 173-175-176-177.wpd

5