Crawford v. United States of America

Filing 27

ORDER overruling Petitioner's 26 Objections to Magistrate Judge's 20 Order denying motion to expand the record and 25 Order denying motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 7/5/2016. (JHC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ZACCHAUES CRAWFORD,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No.:

3:13-cv-719-J-34MCR
3:11-cr-213-J-34MCR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Petitioner Zacchaeus Crawford’s “Objections to
the Magistrate’s Report and Request for De Novo Review by the District Court.” (Doc.
26, Objections). Crawford seems to object to the Magistrate Judge’s order of January 14,
2016 (Doc. 20), which denied Crawford’s second motion to expand the record (Doc. 17),
as well as the Magistrate Judge’s order of February 25, 2016 (Doc. 25), which denied
Crawford’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 23). Crawford sought to expand the record
with affidavits from three family members, all of which were signed and executed in
November 2015. (See Doc. 17, Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3). The affidavits purport to describe the
conduct of law enforcement on the day agents executed a search warrant at Crawford’s
home, which led to the seizure of computers containing hundreds of images and videos
of child pornography. Although Crawford waived the right to challenge the manner in
which police obtained the evidence against him (Crim. Doc. 32, Plea Transcript at 7-8),
and although Crawford insisted at his sentencing hearing that he “freely” cooperated with
law enforcement (Crim. Doc. 29, Sentencing Transcript at 30), Crawford now attempts to

1

submit affidavits describing police officers as “raid[ing]” his house in the early morning,
“screaming” and “thrusting guns” to intimidate the residents, and aiming guns at a baby
lying in a crib. (E.g., Doc. 17, Ex. 1).
The Magistrate Judge’s January 14, 2016, and February 25, 2016, orders do not
dispose of any claims or defenses. See Smith v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d
1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). As such, to prevail in his Objection, Crawford
must establish that the conclusions to which he objects in the Order are clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Merritt
v. Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1016-17 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981); 1 Nat’l
Ass’n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 122 F. Supp. 2d
1335, 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2000); Williams v. Wright, No. 3:09-cv-55, 2009 WL 4891825, at
*1 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2009) (“A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s decision on
a nondispositive issue ‘must consider… objections and modify or set aside any part of the
order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). 2
“Clear error is a highly deferential standard of review.” Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch.
Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “[A] finding is ‘clearly
erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Id. (citations and quotations omitted); see also Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd.,

1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh
Circuit adopted as binding precedent all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down
prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
2
“Although an unpublished opinion is not binding…, it is persuasive authority.” United
States v. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); see generally Fed. R. App.
P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36-2 (“Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they
may be cited as persuasive authority.”).
2

126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997) (“The clear error standard [under Rule 72(a) and 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)] means that the district court can overturn the magistrate judge’s
ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been made.”). A magistrate judge’s order “is contrary to law ‘when it fails to apply or
misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.’” Botta v. Barnhart, 475 F.
Supp. 2d 174, 185 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Catskill Dev., LLC v. Park Place Entm’t Corp.,
206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)); see also Pigott v. Sanibel Dev., LLC, Civil Action No.
07-0083-WS-C, 2008 WL 2937804, at *5 (S.D. Ala. July 23, 2008) (similar) (citation
omitted); Schaaf v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-2346-GET, 2008
WL 489010, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 20, 2008) (similar) (citation omitted). 3 Moreover, a
magistrate judge is afforded broad discretion in issuing non-dispositive pretrial orders
related to discovery such as the December 7, 2015 Order. See Tracy P. v. Sarasota
Cnty., No. 8:05-CV-927-T-26EAJ, 2007 WL 1364381, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2007); see

3

The Court notes some authority that the contrary to law standard invites plenary review of
a magistrate judge’s legal conclusions. See e.g., Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91
(3d Cir. 1992); Milwaukee Carpenter’s Dist. Council Health Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 70 F. Supp.
2d 888, 892 (E.D. Wis. 1999); Computer Econ., Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 2d 980,
983 & n.2 (S.D. Cal. 1999). In this Circuit, however, the contrary to law standard has been
distinguished as more deferential than de novo review. See Merritt, 649 F.2d at 1016-17 (“[A]
magistrate[’s non-dispositive discovery orders] are reviewable under the ‘clearly erroneous and
contrary to law’ standard; they are not subject to a de novo determination as are a magistrate's
proposed findings and recommendations.”) Nonetheless, even to the extent the contrary to law
standard may invite some level of plenary review, it is evident that because a magistrate judge is
afforded broad discretion as to discovery matters, reversal as to a magistrate’s resolution of a
discovery dispute is appropriate only where that discretion is abused. See Tracy P. v. Sarasota
County, No. 8:05-CV-927-T-27EAJ, 2007 WL 1364381, at * 2 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2007) (“Magistrate
judges are afforded broad discretion in the resolution of nondispositive discovery disputes. The
magistrate’s determination will therefore be overturned only if the magistrate judge abused her
discretion or the decision is clearly erroneous.”); Botta, 475 F. Supp. 2d at 185; Doe v. Hartford
Life and Accident Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 547-48 (D. N. J. 2006); Doe v. Marsh, 899 F. Supp.
933, 934 (N.D.N.Y. 1995); see also 12 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Richard L. Marcus,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 3069 (2d ed. 1997) (“Regarding legal issues, the language
‘contrary to law’ appears to invite plenary review. But many matters such as discovery scheduling
or disputes might better be characterized as suitable for an abuse-of-discretion analysis.”).
3

also Rule 6.01(c)(18), Local Rules, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
(Local Rule authorizing magistrate judges to supervise and determine pretrial
proceedings and motions in civil cases, including discovery motions).
After thorough review of the Magistrate Judge’s January 14, 2016, and February
25, 2016, orders, Crawford’s Objections, and the relevant records, the Court finds that
the Magistrate Judge’s orders were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Rule 7
of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings allows a party to expand the record
with “letters predating the filing of the motion,” Rule 7(b), Fed. R. § 2255 Proceedings, but
the instant letters clearly post-date the filing of Crawford’s Motion to Vacate. To the extent
the letters are affidavits under Rule 7(b), the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in
determining that Crawford failed to explain how these affidavits were relevant to the
Motion to Vacate. Therefore, the Court does not find that the Magistrate Judge clearly
erred or rendered a decision that was contrary to law.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Petitioner Zacchaeus Crawford’s “Objections to the Magistrate’s Report and
Request for De Novo Review by the District Court” (Doc. 26, Objections) are
OVERRULED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 5th day of July, 2016.

4

Lc 19
Copies:
Pro se petitioner
Counsel of record

5