Jenkins v. USA

Filing 44

ORDER denying 36 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 9/25/2018. (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’ Motion for Discovery in
2255 Proceedings (doc. 36). In his motion, petitioner requests the Court order
the government to provide him “full discovery,” meaning “ALL documents,
statements, search warrants, interviews (dvd’s), affidavits, case notes, and any
tangible or intangible material that pertains to the criminal proceedings directly
or indirectly related to the prosecution conviction and appeal of Mr. Jenkins.” Id.
at 2 (emphasis in original). For the following reasoning, the motion is DENIED.
Discovery in a section 2255 proceeding is governed by Rule 6 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, made applicable to other habeas cases via
Rule 1(b) of those Rules.

Rule 6 states that “a judge may, for good cause,

authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure or Civil Procedure.” Rule 6(a). However, it is clear that petitioner’s
request is far too broad to satisfy either of the discovery provisions of the Federal

Criminal Rules or the Federal Civil Rules. See Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 16; Fed. R. Civ.
Pro. 26. Petitioner’s section 2255 claim alleges that his prior defense counsel was
ineffective in his handling of a motion to suppress evidence in petitioner’s
underlying criminal case.

Petitioner’s request for all materials “directly or

indirectly” related to his criminal case goes much beyond the scope of discovery
allowable under the Federal rules.
Further, petitioner does not state good cause for seeking the extensive
discovery. It is well settled that a section 2255 petition is not a substitute for a
direct appeal.

Fountain v. United States, 211 F.3d 429, 433 (7th Cir. 2000);

Barnickel v. United States, 113 F.3d 704, 706 (7th Cir. 1997). To the extent
petitioner is attempting to re-litigate or challenge the contested motion to
suppress1, a section 2255 petition is not the proper avenue. As the government
points out and as this Court already ruled in a recent August 24, 2018 Order
(doc. 35), petitioner’s prior counsel, Mr. Turner Rouse, has already filed an
affidavit in this case (doc. 34) regarding the motion to suppress and all that is
properly before the Court regarding the section 2255 claims is what action Mr.
Rouse did or did not take in handling the motion to suppress.

Time has already

passed to argue on appeal about the Court’s Order on the motion in the criminal
case or the motion itself. The Court will not entertain a fishing expedition by
petitioner to create off-topic or untimely arguments.
Petitioner, however, is again reminded that he may seek appropriately
1

The Court gathers this intent from the numerous similar motions petitioner has filed starting in
August 2018 that relate to the instant motion for discovery. See doc. 32 “Motion to Compel
Attorney and Request for Transcripts”; doc. 38 “Motion for Permission to Submit Interrogatories.”

related documents to his section 2255 petition from the channels available to
him, i.e. through his prior counsel. Information regarding the handling of the
motion to suppress is available in the criminal record.

Petitioner is also

reminded his reply deadline is October 5, 2018. See doc. 33. Accordingly, the
motion for discovery (doc. 36) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.09.25
14:53:53 -05'00'
United States District Judge