Williams v. United States of America

Filing 13

ORDER denying without prejudice 11 Request for Attorney Work Product, construed as a Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge James R. Klindt on 8/2/2016. (JHC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

LEOTIS WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No.:

3:14-cv-1279-J-34JRK
3:13-cr-6-J-34JRK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Petitioner Leotis Williams’s Request for “Attorney
Work Product,” which the Court construes as a motion for discovery. (Doc. 11, Motion
for Discovery). Petitioner requests “[a]ny and all information that Alvin Williams[1] was
involved in petitioners [sic] case, police report, arrest report or any other document that
will impeach said witness” that is in the file of Petitioner’s trial counsel. Id. at 2.
A habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery as a matter of course. Arthur v.
Allen, 459 F.3d 1310, 1310 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899,
904 (1997)). Rather, Under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings,
the Court may allow discovery only for good cause. To show “good cause,” the requesting
party “must provide reasons for the request. The request must also include any proposed
interrogatories and requests for admission, and must specify any requested documents.”
Id. at Rule 6(b). For discovery to be warranted, the movant should set forth specific
allegations that give the Court reason to believe that, if the facts are fully developed, the

1

Alvin Williams was a witness for the United States at Petitioner’s trial.
1

movant will be entitled to relief. See Arthur, 459 F.3d at 1310-11 (quoting Bracy, 520 U.S.
at 908-09). “Thus, good cause for discovery cannot arise from mere speculation.” Id. at
1311.
Petitioner is not entitled to discovery at this time. First, the Court has not yet
determined whether Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 1) even warrants an evidentiary
hearing. That is to say, the Court has not yet determined whether Petitioner’s claims are
sufficiently alleged or if the record affirmatively refutes them. See Aron v. United States,
291 F.3d 708, 714-15 (11th Cir. 2002) (a court may deny a prisoner’s § 2255 motion
without an evidentiary hearing only if his or her claims are patently frivolous, or if the
record affirmatively contradicts the claims). Second, Petitioner’s request is overbroad.
Petitioner generally seeks “[a]ny and all information that Alvin Williams was involved in
petitioners [sic] case,” including police reports and arrest reports, but also “any other
document that will impeach said witness.” Motion at 2. Petitioner “must specify any
requested documents,” Rule 6(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, but his
request for “any and all information that Alvin Williams was involved” in his case does not
do that. Third, Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for discovery. Petitioner does
not explain what he expects discovery to disclose, or how it relates to any of the claims
he advances in his Motion to Vacate. (See Doc. 1). 2
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:

2

Indeed, while Petitioner raises claims concerning subject matter jurisdiction, ineffective
assistance of counsel, violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and actual innocence,
the claims are so conclusory that it is hard to discern how the discovery request would advance
any of them, given the lack of factual content or specificity.
2

1. Petitioner Leotis Williams’s Request for Attorney Work Product, construed as a
Motion for Discovery (Doc. 11), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Petitioner may move again for discovery by identifying the specific documents
he seeks and why he requires them to advance the claims set forth in the
Motion to Vacate, or if the Court grants an evidentiary hearing.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 2nd day of August, 2016.

Lc 19
Copies:
Counsel of record
Pro se petitioner

3