McKenzie v. United States of America

Filing 26

ORDER denying 24 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 2/2/18. (jrb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
OLAUDAH McKENZIE,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)

FILED
Scott L. Poff, Clerk
United States District Court

By James Burrell at 10:46 am, Feb 02, 2018

CV616-086
CR615-001

ORDER
Olaudah McKenzie’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his
conviction was denied on the merits (docs. 353, 367 & 370) and his
motion for a certificate of appealability was denied by the Eleventh
Circuit (McKenzie v. United States, No. 17-11869 (11th Cir. Oct. 13,
2017).

He now seeks to compel the disclosure of the Government’s

informant and exculpatory and impeachment materials used in his
case. Doc. 381 (titling the motion “This is not a second or successive
2255 motion, this is a motion to compel the disclosure of the ident[i]ty of
conf[i]dential informant #73-891”).
Even after a § 2255 motion or habeas petition is filed, a petitioner
is generally “not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course”
but must instead demonstrate “good cause.” Arthur v. Allen, 459 F.3d

1310, 1310 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Rules 1(b) and 6(a) of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases; Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Proceedings; United States v. Hollis, 2010 WL 892196 (D. Ak. Mar. 10,
2010) (denying document unsealing without a relevancy showing
because such production would just be a “fishing expedition for the sake
of turning up new potential 2255 claims”).
Here, McKenzie has not made any need-based showing for these
documents beyond his vague, conclusory belief that they may be of some
use to him. See doc. 381. He has already litigated, and lost, his § 2255
motion. His request is therefore denied. See Hands v. United States,
2016 WL 4995074 at *3 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 19, 2016).
SO ORDERED, this 2nd

day of February, 2018.

2