Perry v. United States of America
ORDER granting DE 15 Petitioner's ore tenus Motion for Access to Corrlinks for the limited purpose of communicating with his counsel in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard on 6/7/2021. See attached document for full details. (ggr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 19-60324-CV-MORENO/MAYNARD
LAWRENCE HENRY PERRY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S ORE TENUS MOTION (DE 15)
THIS CAUSE is before the undersigned upon the ore tenus Motion made on May 11,
2021, requesting Petitioner Lawrence Henry Perry (“Petitioner”) be granted access to the
Corrlinks email messaging system in order to communicate with his attorney in this matter. DE
15. Upon review of the record, noting that Respondent does not object to the requested relief, and
being otherwise fully advised, the Court orders as follows.
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, initiated this matter on February 6, 2019 by filing a Motion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence related to his 2018 criminal
conviction in this Court. DE 1. Upon review of the Motion, the undersigned determined an
evidentiary hearing is required as to one of Petitioner’s claims and thus, on April 27, 2021,
appointed attorney Randee Golder, Esq., to represent Petitioner at all further stages of this
proceeding. DE 12. During a status conference before this Court on May 11, 2021, Attorney
Golder requested Petitioner be granted access to the Bureau of Prison’s Corrlinks email system to
facilitate her communication with her client, who is currently housed at FCI Loretto in Loretto,
Pennsylvania. DE 15. As Respondent did not appear at the May 11, 2021 status conference, the
undersigned ordered a Response be filed as to Petitioner’s request. DE 16.
In its written Responses, Respondent explains that Petitioner does not presently have access
to the Corrlinks email system due to the nature of his conviction for attempted coercion and
enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity. DE 19 at 4. Respondent states that FCI Loretto,
where Petitioner is currently housed, has the capability to restrict Petitioner’s access to Corrlinks
to that of communications with his counsel. Id. So long as Petitioner is limited to communications
only with his counsel in this case, Respondent does not object to the requested relief. DE 21 at 2.
Respondent cautions, however, that all Corrlinks communications are monitored such that
Petitioner can have no expectation of privacy as to any communication on or information stored
within the system. DE 19 at 3-4.
Given that Attorney Golder was just appointed to this case, Petitioner is located out of state,
and an evidentiary hearing has been set in this matter for August 31, 2021, Petitioner and his
counsel would benefit from being able to correspond electronically. Although Corrlinks does not
provide a means for confidential communication, it allows Attorney Golder to exchange nonprivileged information related to the preparation of the case with her client and may assist her in
scheduling the time and manner of needed privileged conversations.
considered the information provided by the parties and noting that Respondent has no
objection, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s ore tenus Motion for Access to
Corrlinks (DE 15) is GRANTED as follows: Petitioner Lawrence Henry Perry shall be granted
access to the Corrlinks email system for the sole purpose of communicating with his counsel in
this case, Randee Golder, Esq., or her office. Petitioner may not have access to Corrlinks for
any purpose other than communicating with Attorney Golder or her office.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 7th day of June, 2021.
SHANIEK M. MAYNARD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
772 Saint Joseph St.
Loretto, PA 15940
Lawrence Henry Perry
Federal Correctional Institution
Post Office Box 1000
Loretto, PA 15940
Counsel of record
Noticing 2255 US Attorney
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?