Jeffries v. USA
Filing
64
ORDER granting 63 Petitioner's Motion to Withdraw 13 Motion for Reconsideration, 14 Ex Parte Motion, and 15 Sealed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying as moot 46 Petitioner's Ex Parte Mo tion; denying 53 Petitioner's Motion to Compel; granting 54 Petitioner's Motion to Supplement Ground Two of Section 2255 Motion; denying 59 Petitioner's Motion to Amend Section 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set-Aside, or Correct an I llegal Sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); and denying 60 Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Any Future Response by the Gov. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 2/6/12. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb) Modified restriction on 2/6/2012 (ejb). NEF Regenerated.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:10cv205
[Criminal Case No. 1:07cr56]
REGINALD DEWAYNE
JEFFRIES,
Petitioner,
vs.
)
)
)
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent.
)
__________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following motions filed by the
Petitioner:
1.
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 13] re Order on Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief;
2.
Ex Parte Motion [Doc. 14];
3.
Sealed Motion [Doc. 15];
4.
Motion to Withdraw Motion for Reconsideration, Ex Parte Motion, and
Sealed Motion [Doc. 63];
5.
Ex Parte Motion [Doc. 46];
6.
Motion to Compel Disclosure of Names of Law Enforcement Officers
[Doc. 53];
7.
Motion to Supplement Ground Two of Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion
[Doc. 54];
8.
Motion to Amend Section 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set-Aside, or Correct
an Illegal Sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) [Doc. 59]; and
9.
Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Any Future Response by the
Government [Doc. 60].
DISCUSSION
The Court first considers the Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw certain
previously filed motions: the Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 13], an Ex Parte
Motion [Doc. 14], and Sealed Motion [Doc. 15]. The Court will grant the
Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw each of these motions.
In the Petitioner’s next motion, which has been filed as an ex parte
motion [Doc. 46], he asks the Court to allow him to supplement pleadings from
his previous “Ex Parte Motion” [Doc. 14]. Because the Court is granting
Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw that previously filed motion, [Doc. 14], this
motion [Doc. 46], will be denied as moot.
The Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel Disclosure of Names of Law
Enforcement Officers/Supervising Officers/Undercover Officers in Terry Lee
Landrum Case [Doc. 53]. In support of the motion to compel, the Petitioner
notes that in his criminal trial, the trial court allowed, pursuant to Rule 404(b)
of the Federal Rules of Evidence, government witness Joseph Sorrells to
testify as to evidence of prior bad acts by the Petitioner. In his Section 2555
motion, the Petitioner contends that the 404(b) testimony violated his
“constitutional right to Due Process of Law and Right to Counsel for the
defense pursuant to the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.” [Doc. 53 at 3].
The Petitioner further notes that a recent Asheville Police Department
audit revealed missing evidence from the police department’s evidence room.
The Petitioner claims that the police department revealed the results of a
partial audit it had conducted only after the District Attorney’s office was
preparing to prosecute a case against Terry Lee Landrum and it was
discovered that valuable amounts of oxycodone pills were missing from the
evidence room. The Petitioner suggests that Joseph Sorrells may have had
possible involvement in the missing evidence, and he therefore seeks an
order from the Court compelling the City of Asheville to disclose the names of
the police officers involved in Landrum’s arrest. The Petitioner states that this
Court
should compel disclosure of the names of the law enforcement
officers with the Asheville Police Department in order to restore
the integrity of the judicial proceedings and to help determine the
magnitude of constitutional error in Petitioner’s conviction which
was gained after-all [sic] with the help of City and State
cooperation with the United States Attorney.
[Doc. 53 at 6].
The Petitioner has not offered anything more than pure speculation to
show that Joseph Sorrells had any possible involvement in evidence missing
from the police department evidence room. Nor has the Petitioner shown that
the 404(b) evidence of prior bad acts introduced at his trial was false or untrue
or that Sorrells lied about the prior bad acts. Furthermore, as the Respondent
notes in its brief in opposition to the Petitioner’s motion, on direct review the
Fourth Circuit specifically held that any admission of Rule 404(b) evidence at
the Petitioner’s trial did not prejudice him because of the overwhelming
evidence otherwise supporting the jury’s verdict. United States v. Jeffries,
2008 WL 5396497, at *2 (4th Cir. 2008). The Court therefore denies the
Petitioner’s motion.
The Petitioner also moves to supplement ground two, paragraph 1 of his
Section 2255 motion by including a copy of his prior felony record. [Doc. 54].
This motion will be granted.
Next, the Petitioner seeks to amend the Section 2255 motion based on
what he describes as newly discovered evidence. [Doc. 59]. That is, he
seeks to attach affidavits by certain witnesses who attest that the Petitioner
was not selling drugs at the time of his arrest. The Court notes that in an
Order dated October 19, 2011, the Court specifically ordered that, in light of
Petitioner’s prolific and frivolous filings, he “may not make further filings
except that he may respond to any further motions filed by the Respondent
within the time allotted by law, he may re-file a motion for summary judgment
at the appropriate time, and he may make such other filings for which he has
been granted advanced permission by the Court by further order.” [Doc. 55
at 5]. Notwithstanding the Court’s Order of October 19, 2011, the Petitioner
filed this Motion to Amend without first seeking permission from the Court.
The Court will, therefore, deny the motion.
Finally, also in violation of the Court’s Order of October 19, 2011, the
Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to any Future
Response Made by the Government [Doc. 60].
The Court will deny the
motion. The Petitioner may file a motion for extension of time in response to
a filing by the government when such motion is needed, but the Court will not
issue a blanket order granting a motion for extension of time with regard to
any future motions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
The
Petitioner’s
Motion
to
Withdraw
[Doc.
63]
Motion
for
Reconsideration [Doc. 13], Ex Parte Motion [Doc. 14], and Sealed
Motion [Doc. 15] is hereby GRANTED.
The Clerk is directed to
terminate the following motions as withdrawn by Petitioner: [Docs. 13,
14, and 15].
2.
The Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion [Doc. 46] is hereby DENIED as moot.
3.
The Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Disclosure of Names of Law
Enforcement Officers [Doc. 53] is DENIED.
4.
The Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement Ground Two of Petitioner’s
Section 2255 Motion [Doc. 54] is GRANTED.
5.
The Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Section 2255 Motion to Vacate, SetAside, or Correct an Illegal Sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)
[Doc. 59] is hereby DENIED; and
6.
The Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Any Future
Response by the Government [Doc. 60] is hereby DENIED.
Signed: February 6, 2012
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?