Jenkins v. USA

Filing 35

ORDER denying 32 Motion to Compel Review of Case File and Request for Documents. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 8/24/2018. (ceh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTWON D. JENKINS,
Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. 3:18-cv-610-DRH

Respondent.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Before the Court is petitioner Antwon Jenkins’ (“petitioner”) Motion to
Compel his former attorney, Mr. Turner Rouse, to review his case file, and
Request for Documents (doc. 32).

Specifically, petitioner takes offense to the

government’s assertion that petitioner never requested Mr. Rouse to file a motion
to suppress evidence of the traffic stop that lead to his arrest and conviction. Id.
at 1. Petitioner claims a hand-written letter exists which petitioner sent to Mr.
Rouse requesting the same. Id. Accordingly, petitioner seeks the Court compel
Mr. Rouse to review petitioner’s criminal file, in (what the Court assumes) an
attempt to locate the alleged letter. This request is DENIED.
Mr. Rouse has already filed an affidavit (doc. 34) in which he states he does
not recall specific direction from petitioner regarding a motion to suppress.
Further, Mr. Rouse states that he “did not think a motion to suppress the stop
would have been meritorious at the time nor am I convinced in retrospect it would
have been. My practice then and now is not to file frivolous motions.” Id. at 1-2.
Accordingly, as Mr. Rouse has already spoken on the issue, it makes little sense
1

and creates a waste of time and resources to compel Mr. Rouse review the file
again. The motion to compel review of the case file by Mr. Rouse is denied.
Petitioner also seeks the Court provide him with copies of his pro-se
motion seeking substitution of counsel and the transcript from the hearing
regarding that motion.

Doc. 32 at 2-3.

Although petitioner claims these

documents would aid him in his response to the government, he again alleges this
as he wishes to demonstrate he informed Mr. Rouse of the potential to file a
motion to suppress. Id. at 3.

Mr. Rouse has already sworn to the contrary. See

United States v. McCollum, 426 U.S. 317 (1976).
Additionally, petitioner makes no allegations regarding any attempt to
retrieve the documents through his trial counsel prior to petitioning the Court to
provide them free of charge. Petitioner is advised he may re-seek relief from the
Court if he provides documentation of his attempts, but inability, to obtain the
documents through the channels currently available to him.

Petitioner is

reminded his reply deadline has been extended to October 5, 2018 to afford him
the opportunity to gather all materials necessary to file his reply brief. See doc.
33. Accordingly, the request for copies is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.08.24
15:18:09 -05'00'
United States District Judge

2