Saunders v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 4/24/12. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MICHAEL J.G. SAUNDERS,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 3:llcv705-HEH
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing Action)
Michael J.G. Saunders, a former Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted an
action he titled, "Petition To Receive Copy of Record Without Cost" (hereinafter
"Petition"). Saunders requests permission to proceed informapauperis. Upon review of
Saunders's submissions, Saunders's motions to proceed informa pauperis will be
granted.
In the Petition, Saunders requests that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the Court
enter an order directing that he be provided with a copy of the record in "Commonwealth
of Virginia v. MichaelJ.G. Saunders, Case No. CR07C02318-01, 02 (Chesterfield,
Virginia 2009) without cost." (Pet. I.)1 Alternatively, Petitioner requests that the Court
appoint counsel to assist him.
1 Saunders has submitted a Motion for Reconsideration wherein he asks the Court to treat
his Petition as a request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2250. The Motion for Reconsideration will
be granted.
The pertinent statute provides,
If on any application for a writ of habeas corpus an order has been made
permitting the petitioner to prosecute the application in forma pauperis, the
clerk of any court of the United States shall furnish to the petitioner without
cost certified copies of such documents or parts of the record on file in his
office as may be required by order of the judge before whom the
application is pending.
28 U.S.C. § 2250. "The matter of granting a motion to produce copies of documents
under Section 2250, and if granted, what copies are to be furnished, is withinthe
discretion of the court." Mayes v. Arrelano, No. 09-CV-01736-ZLW-KLM, 2011 WL
116850, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2011) (quoting Cassidy v. United States, 304 F. Supp.
864, 867-68 (E.D. Mo. 1969), aff'd, 428 F.2d 585 (8th Cir. 1970)). Generally, "the
Court will order furnishment of documents to a petitioner only when he [or she] has
provided 'a sufficient explanation of the need for the documents requested.'" Id.
(quoting United States v. Reed, No. 88^168-01, 1989 WL 140493, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov.
17, 1989)); see Bozeman v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1262, 1264 (E.D. Va. 1973)
(requiring petitioner to demonstrate a particularized need for documents).
Here, the Court dismissed Saunders's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on
March 2, 2012. Saunders v. Clarke, No. 3:11CV170, 2012 WL 689270, at *10 (E.D. Va.
Mar. 2, 2012). The Court concluded that the statute of limitations barred that action.
Saunders fails to tender any sufficient explanation as to why he needs a copy of his state
court record. Furthermore, Saunders fails to demonstrate that the interests ofjustice
warrant the appointment ofcounsel. Accordingly, Saunders's Petition and request for the
appointment ofcounsel will be denied. The action will be dismissed.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
441
Date: AprJ1\20i*Richmond, Virginia
Is!
HENRY E. HUDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?