James William Brown v. United States Of America

Filing 19

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 1/15/2014. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
JAMES WILLIAM BROWN,

)

Movant,

Case No. CV411-245
CR408-007

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

James William Brown has sent this Court another letter' seeking
judicial assistance in obtaining his prison medical records. CR408-007,
doc. 170 In his first letter-motion, he claimed a medical need for them
and said that they were "also relevant to an upcoming [28 U.S.C.] § 2255
motion."' Doe. 168 at 1. The Court denied his motion. Doe. 170.

The Court again reminds Brown that parties should submit to this Court formal
complaints, petitions, briefs and motions, not letters. Letters also can get lost, while
complaints, motions and briefs are filed in the record of each case. This creates a
See In Re:
public record of a matter presented for the Court's consideration.
Unsolicited Letters to Federal Judges, 126 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (S.D. Ga. 2000).
All record citations are to the docket sheet for this criminal case. All pinpoint
citations are to the page number assigned by the Court's electronic filing system to
the upper right hand corner of each page.
2

Brown pled guilty to child pornography charges, received a 296-month sentence,
and exhausted his direct and collateral (§ 2255) appeals. Docs. 73, 98, 99, 145, 158 &
165.

Moving to reconsider, Brown now claims (citing no legal authority)
that "[u]nder the law, I am entitled to access and possess copies of my
medical records from any penal facility[i]es I have been held in." Doc.
171 at 2. He explains that "I need my medical records in order to
expedite treatments by avoiding previously completed tests and
treatments, as well as to show diagnoses, x-ray results and prescription
histories." Id. Finally, he insists that "I never filed a "Motion for 28
USC §2255 Discovery" and "never [labeled] or titled my letter to the
Court as such. Regardless of any possible future secondary uses of these
am not requesting the records for that purpose." Doc 171 at 1.
The Court DENIES Brown's motion for reconsideration. Those
who move this Court for relief must supply legal authority to support
their request. The Court does not research and litigate legal claims for
anyone.' And simply saying "I want something" doesn't cut it. Nor does
it assist such pursuit by quibbling about record facts. Substance prevails
over nomenclature; by any objective standard, Brown sought pre-filing
discovery for a potential § 2255 motion, and it is dissembling of him to
See Lemons v. Lewis, 969 F. Supp. 657, 659 (D. Kan. 1997) (it is not "the court's
function to become an advocate for the pro se litigant"), cited in Bivens v. Roberts,
2009 WL 411527 at * 3 (S.D. Ga. Feb 18, 2009) ("judges must not raise issues and
arguments on plaintiffs' behalf').
2

superilluminate the fact that he did not formally title his original request
in that manner.
1k
SO ORDERED this / day of January, 2014.

UNITE TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA