Stanley v. Leibson
Filing
59
ORDER Denying 56 Motion for Leave. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHNNIE LEROY STANLEY,
Plaintiff,
Case Number: 2:09-CV-12202
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts
v.
MICHAEL LEIBSON,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
This motion is one of many filed by Johnnie Leroy Stanley (“Stanley”) over the
last 10 years regarding disclosure of federal grand jury 96-2-98 transcripts from the
case of United States v. Adams, E.D. Mich. Stanley was not a party charged in that
grand jury indictment, but Stanley believes that materials from the Adams federal grand
jury were improperly used to empanel an Oakland County grand jury that did indict him.
Since his own conviction, Stanley has petitioned for a Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 6(e) investigation against Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”). His
petition was denied.
Stanley now files a Motion for Leave asking the Court to: 1) reinstate his request
for a Rule 6(e) investigation; and, 2) produce a disclosure order for federal grand jury
96-2-98 transcripts.
Stanley was convicted in 2002 in Oakland County Circuit Court of conspiracy to
deliver and/or possess with the intent to deliver a controlled substance. Since 2004,
this Court has repeatedly denied and struck from the docket most if not all of Stanley’s
1
Rule 6(e) violation claims. Once again, Stanley burdens this Court with another petition
regarding the exact same or similar requests that have all been previously dismissed.
Stanley’s requests are meritless; and he has yet to make a prima facie showing
that a Rule 6(e) violation occurred. He consistently fails to show good cause for the
production of these transcripts. Stanley has not provided the Court with any new
information that would lead it to conclude otherwise. The record establishes that the
Oakland County prosecutor was not in possession of any federal grand jury materials
during Stanley’s preliminary hearing in state court on December 2, 1998. As the
Government properly notes, the state prosecutor stated on the record that “[AUSA
Leibson] indicated that it would be a violation of Federal Law for [the state prosecutor] to
have copies of the [grand jury] transcript.”
Additionally, the affidavit and “new evidence” of defense counsel William L.
Cataldo, are not sufficient to prove fraud or justify reinstatement of a Rule 6(e)
investigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) states: “the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following . . . newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial.” Stanley’s first petition was in 2004, only two years after
his conviction. The next 10 years appear to have been spent by Stanley filing frivolous
petitions. Stanley had the opportunity and time to discover Cataldo’s statement, had he
prepared more effectively. More importantly, the affidavit merely states that Cataldo
was to contact Mr. Leibson about how to obtain the federal grand jury transcripts, but
that he does not recollect whether or not he attempted to discuss the transcripts or the
process to procure them in connection with Stanley’s criminal case. This statement is
2
nothing more than a sworn reporting of events; it does not supply any merit to a claim
under Rule 6(e).
Stanley not only has clogged this Court with an issue already litigated; he has
also brought multiple similar petitions in state court and before other federal judges, with
no success. The Court agrees with the Government and concludes that since Stanley
has exhaustively litigated these claims in both state and federal court, his claim is
barred by the doctrines of res judicata, claim preclusion, and collateral estoppel. See
Winget v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank NA, 537 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2008); Abbott v.
Michigan, 474 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2007); Bowles v. Russell, 432 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2005).
The Government accurately characterizes Stanley as a serial litigant, on a 10-year
fishing expedition to seek relief where none exists; he has an extensive history of
frivolous filings with the Court and he lacks the potential to make an effective argument
regarding this issue.
Stanley’s Motion for Leave is DENIED with prejudice; this case is CLOSED;
Stanley cannot file any more papers with the Court.
IT IS ORDERED.
S/Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: June 16, 2014
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
and Johnnie Leroy Stanley by electronic means
or U.S. Mail on June 16, 2014.
s/Linda Vertriest
Deputy Clerk
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?