Scott v. Shartle et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM ORDER directing Respondents to file an Answer within 40 days; Scott may file a Reply within 30 days after the Answer is filed; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 5 Scott's Motion to Appoint Counsel; DENYING AS MOOT 11 Scott's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Scott's 12 Motion for Leave for Petitioner to Conduct Discovery; 13 Motion for Order to Obtain State Transcript; 14 Motion Requesting an Evidentiary Hearing and 15 Motion for Leave to Amend Petitioner's Motion to Conduct Discovery; DENYING 16 Scott's Motion Opposing any Motion to Dismiss Filed by Respondents and DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 17 Scott's Motion for Summary Judgment in Petitioner's Favor. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 4/28/2016. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m & e-m as directed 4/28/16)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JASON SCOTT,
Inmate Identification No. 50651-037,
Petitioner,
v.

WARDEN J.T. SHARTLE,
FCC Warden,
SUSAN G. MCCLINTOCK,
USP Warden, Tucson, AZ,and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,

Civil Action No. TDC-16-0364

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
On January 20, 2016, Jason Scott, who is self-represented, filed a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

9

2254, claiming that he is actually innocent of his

conviction in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. On February 9, 2016, the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Jorgenson, J.) transferred Scott's
Petition, Motion to Appoint Counsel, and Motion to Toll AEDPA's I-year Time Limit to File a
Motion to Vacate Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland.

On February 29,2016, Scott filed seven additional motions: a Motion for

Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; a Motion for Leave for Petitioner to Conduct Discovery; a
Motion for Leave to Amend Petitioner's Motion to Conduct Discovery; a Motion for Order to
Obtain State Court Transcripts;

a Motion Requesting

an Evidentiary

Hearing;

a Motion

Opposing any Motion to Dismiss; and a Motion for Summary Judgment in Petitioner's Favor.

The matter is ready for disposition, and a hearing is not necessary.

See D. Md. Local R. 105.6.

The Court will address each motion and issue a briefing schedule for Scott's Petition.
First, Scott's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is denied as moot because
he has already paid the $5 filing fee. See ECF No. 1-4.
Second, Scott requests that the Court toll the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. ~ 2254, pursuant to equitable tolling
principles.

Although Scott has made this argument in a "Motion," the Court construes the

Motion as an addendum to section 18 of his Petition, in which he also asserts that the statute of
limitations should be tolled. Because Scott's arguments are construed as part of his Petition, the
Court will reserve a ruling pending Respondents'
which is described below.

Answer and Scott's Reply, the schedule for

In this regard, Respondents are directed to address the equitable

tolling arguments raised by Scott in their Answer.

Scott may respond to these arguments in his

Reply.
Third, Scott has filed several motions in which he seeks to obtain evidence to support his
Petition:

the Motion for Leave for Petitioner to Conduct Discovery, the Motion for Leave to

Amend Petitioper's Motion to Conduct Discovery, the Motion for Order to Obtain State Court
Transcripts,

and the Motion Requesting

an Evidentiary

Hearing.

Scott's

request for all

transcripts from proceedings between his indictment and sentencing is denied. Scott claims he is
entitled to these transcripts on the basis of his indigent status. Habeas petitioners must, however,
demonstrate a need for transcripts at government expense beyond their indigent status before
establishing a right to them. See Jones v. Superintendent,

Va. State Farm, 460 F.2d 150, 152

(4th Cir. 1972). Scott has not done so here, so his Motion is denied. It should be noted, however

2

that Respondents

must attach to their Answer "parts of the transcript that [they] consider[]

relevant." See R. Governing
Similarly,

S 2254

Cases 5(c).

Scott's requests for discovery and an evidentiary hearing are denied as

premature. Unlike a traditional civil litigant, a habeas petitioner "is not entitled to discovery as a
matter of ordinary course."

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997).

Rather, "[a] judge

may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery."

R. Governing

S

2254 Cases 6(a). "If the

petition is not dismissed, the judge must review the answer, any transcripts and records of statecourt proceedings, and any materials submitted under Rule 7 to determine whether an evidentiary
hearing is warranted."

R. Governing

S 2254

Cases 8(a). There are reasons why discovery may

not be permitted depending on the arguments Respondents raise in their Answer; for example,
discovery would not be appropriate if Scott has not exhausted all available remedies in state
court.

See Calderon v.

us. Dist.

Court for the N. Dist of Cal., 98 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir.

1996). Therefore, Scott's request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing are denied without
prejudice.
Fourth, Scott's Motion for Summary Judgment, which he filed before any discovery has
begun, is also premature.

Scott may not be aware that motions for summary judgment are

generally filed after the close of discovery and are appropriate only when "there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Respondents have not yet had an

opportunity to file an Answer and it is unknown at this stage of the case whether there are
material facts in dispute.

Therefore, his Motion for Summary Judgment is denied without

prejudice to refiling upon the close of discovery, if it should occur.

3

Fifth, because respondents have not filed a Motion to Dismiss, Scott's Motion Opposing
any Motion to Dismiss is, as its title suggests, premature.

Scott will have an opportunity to

oppose any motion to dismiss in the event one is filed. His Motion is therefore denied.
Finally, Scott has filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel, which, he asserts, is warranted
because of the complexity of the case, because he has insufficient legal training, and because he
is imprisoned. Under

9 2254,

"the court may appoint counsel for an applicant who is or becomes

financially unable to afford counsel, except as provided by a rule promulgated by the Supreme
Court pursuant to statutory authority." 28 U.S.C.

9 2254(h).

In addition, the Court must appoint

counsel if it is necessary for effective discovery or if an evidentiary hearing is warranted. See R.
Governing

9

2254 Cases 6(a) & 8(c). Thus far, Scott has adequately presented his claims, as

evidenced by his several motions.

He has recognized the appropriate standards of law and has

applied the la~ to his circumstances.

Moreover, it is not yet clear whether discovery or an

evidentiary hearing will be necessary in this case, and therefore whether appointment of counsel
is necessary for those reasons.

Appointment of counsel is thus not warranted at this time, and

Scott's Motion is denied without prejudice.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Respondents

are directed to file an Answer to Scott's Petition within 40 days of this

Order. See R. Governing

9 2254

Cases 5(a). Respondents are reminded that the Answer

must include copies of all transcripts, briefs, opinions, and dispositive orders described in
Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

9

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

Respondents are also reminded to respond to the equitable tolling arguments raised by
Scott. See ECF Nos. 1,4,18.

4

2. Scott may file a Reply to Respondents' Answer within 30 days after the Answer is filed.

See R. Governing 9 2254 Cases 5(e).
3. Scott's Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No.5, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. Scott's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 11, is DENIED AS
MOOT.
5. Scott's Motion for Leave for Petitioner to Conduct Discovery, ECF No. 12, Motion for
Order to Obtain State Court Transcript, ECF No. 13, Motion Requesting an Evidentiary
Hearing, ECF No. 14, and Motion for Leave to Amend Petitioner's Motion to Conduct
Discovery, ECF No. 15, are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
6. Scott's Motion Opposing any Motion to Dismiss Filed by Respondents, ECF No. 16, is
DENIED.
7. Scott's Motion for Summary Judgment m Petitioner's

Favor, ECF 17,

IS

DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
8. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order and the Instructions for Filing a Habeas
Corpus Petition under 28 U.S.C.

9

2254 to Scott.

consult those Instructions, the Rules Governing

9 2254

Scott is strongly encouraged to
Cases in the United States District

Courts, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland to familiarize himself with the process of
federal litigation and habeas proceedings.

5

9. The Clerk is directed to mail a Copy of this Order and Scott's Petition to Edward J.
Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General State of Maryland,
Criminal Appeals Division.

Date: April

'2l(

2016
THEODORE D. CH
United States Distri

6