Order denying as moot re 56 Motion for Extension of Time — USA v. Harun (Dkt. 63, S.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia · No. 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE · Doc. 63 · 2025-02-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
 
DUBLIN DIVISION 
 
GLADYS HARUN, 
 
) 
 
) 
 
Petitioner, 
) 
 
)    
 
v. 
)     
CR 323-003 
 
)     
   
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Respondent. 
) 
_________ 
 
O R D E R 
_________ 
 
 
Petitioner, an inmate at Alderson Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia, has 
filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence; she alleges 
various problems with her conviction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), for making false 
statements in an application for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan from the Small Business 
Administration.  (See doc. no. 57.)  Neither the § 2255 motion, nor the declaration in support 
were signed by Petitioner, (doc. no. 58), and the Clerk of Court issued a deficiency notice, to 
which Petitioner has yet to respond, (see doc. no. 59).1  Additionally, Petitioner filed three 
discovery-related motions, requesting the Court compel the production of certain documents 
and extend the time for her submit information in addition to the nearly 200 pages of exhibits 
 
1As Petitioner has not yet signed the documents, the Court has not yet reviewed Petitioner’s 
§ 2255 motion in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings to 
determine whether Respondent should be ordered to file a response. 
 
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 63     Filed 02/27/25     Page 1 of 5

2 
 
already filed.2  (See doc. nos. 56, 58, 61, 62.)   
 
Prior to filing her § 2255 motion, Petitioner asked United States District Judge Dudley 
H. Bowen, Jr., for the documents she now seeks, and was denied.  (See doc. nos. 53, 54, 55.)  
Judge Bowen denied the first motion to compel Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Company to 
“surrender various franchisee business documents” because there was not s nexus between the 
sought-after documents and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and Petitioner had not 
shown the other requested documents were necessary to decide a particular claim of ineffective 
assistance.  (See doc. no. 55.)  Judge Bowen further explained that if Petitioner filed a § 2255 
motion, she could invoke the civil discovery process upon  a showing of good cause.  (See id. 
at 4.)   
Although Petitioner has now filed a § 2255 motion, albeit as yet unsigned, she has not 
made a showing of good cause for discovery, as she still fails to connect the sought-after 
discovery as relevant to resolving a particular claim in her § 2255 motion.  “A habeas 
petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter 
of ordinary course.”  Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997).  Rather, discovery may be 
had upon a showing of good cause, within the discretion of the district court.  Ochoa v. United 
States, 45 F.4th 1293, 1301 (11th Cir. 2022), cert. denied 143 S. Ct. 1024 (U.S. Mar. 20, 2023); 
see also Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings.  To demonstrate good 
cause, specific allegations must show “reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are 
fully developed, be able to demonstrate that [s]he is entitled to relief.”  Ochoa, 45 F.4th at 1301  
 
2One of these discovery motions was also not signed, (doc. no. 61), but the Clerk of Court 
did not issue a deficiency notice.   
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 63     Filed 02/27/25     Page 2 of 5

3 
 
(citing Arthur v. Allen, 459 F.3d 1310-11 (11th Cir. 2006)); Brown v. United States, 583 F. 
Supp. 2d 1330, 1336 (S.D. Ga. 2008).  Notably, however, “a habeas case is not a vehicle for a 
so-called fishing expedition via discovery, in an effort to find evidence to support a claim.”  
Ochoa, 45 F.4th at 1301 (citation omitted).  
In her discovery motions, Petitioner fails to demonstrate the information sought is 
relevant to a particular claim in her § 2255 motion.3  That is, although she broadly makes 
conclusory allegations that the information sought will somehow support any one of her 
overarching claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or an improper government 
investigation, she does not provide a detailed explanation for why she needs the evidence.  See 
United States v. Castillo, No. CR 113-199, 2019 WL 4747999, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2019) 
(finding no good cause for discovery under Rule 6 where petitioner did “not identify any 
specific documents or provide a detailed explanation for why he needs the evidence”) (Bowen, 
J.).  Petitioner has been able to formulate her § 2255 motion based on information or 
knowledge already within her possession, and she offers no concrete explanation as to why the 
information sought is necessary to further develop her claims.  See Williams v. Humphrey, 
No. CV 412-106 2013 WL 3877750, at *3 (S.D. Ga. July 26, 2013) (“A petitioner must set 
forth specific allegations of fact, as to opposed to conclusory assertions, because Rule 6 does 
not authorize ‘fishing expeditions.’”).  Indeed, Petitioner has already provided the Court with 
hundreds of pages of exhibits.   
 
 
3A cursory review of Petitioner’s unsigned § 2255 motion and supporting declaration 
shows it is a difficult task to decipher Petitioner’s claims because the motion does not 
“substantially follow” the form appended to the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, as is 
required by Rule 2 of those governing rules. 
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 63     Filed 02/27/25     Page 3 of 5

4 
 
The law is clear that Petitioner is not entitled to obtain every document she believes has 
any connection to her financial activities, particularly when she pleaded guilty to her count of 
conviction and admitted the facts of her crime.  (See doc. no. 8, p. 2 (recounting facts in written 
plea agreement, the accuracy of which was agreed to by Petitioner, necessary to satisfy the 
elements of the offense of conviction).)  To the extent Petitioner believes any of the sought-
after discovery supports a claim that any of her counsel’s efforts in convincing the government 
to drop the original charges and replace them with a lesser charge, which cut Petitioner’s 
sentencing exposure from a maximum term of imprisonment of twenty years to five years, she 
fails to explain any such connection.  Nor does she explain how any of the sought-after 
information would otherwise specifically support her claim of an improper investigation by 
the government, particularly when she was the target of the government’s investigation and 
would have access to her own financial records.4 
In sum, Petitioner has again submitted overly broad discovery requests that are not 
specifically targeted to a particular claim in her § 2255 motion.  Petitioner has not shown good 
cause for conducting additional discovery, as there is no distinct issue identified as needing 
further and specific investigation in support of a particular claim in her § 2255 motion.  
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the discovery motions, (doc. nos. 61,5 62), and DENIES as 
 
4The Court is aware Petitioner states she and her family have unsuccessfully requested 
documents from Jackson Hewitt, but she provides no details about how the documents were 
requested or why any such requests were denied.  (See doc. no. 61.) 
 
5Petitioner’s motion to compel records from Jackson Hewitt Tax Service is also subject to 
denial because it does not comply with the Court’s Local Rules for two reasons:  (1) the filing is 
not signed; and (2) there is no certificate of service showing it was served on Respondent.  See 
Loc. R. 5.1 (certificate of service required); Loc. R. 11.1 (signature required).  A motion may be 
summarily denied for failing to comply with the Local Rules.  See Layfield v. Bill Heard Chevrolet 
Co., 607 F.2d 1097, 1099 (5th Cir. 1979). 
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 63     Filed 02/27/25     Page 4 of 5

5 
 
MOOT the request for an extension of time to present additional evidence, (doc. no. 56).   
 
Upon receipt of Petitioner’s response to the Clerk’s deficiency notice regarding a 
signature on Petitioner’s § 2255 motion and declaration in support, the Court will review the 
§ 2255 motion in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. 
 
SO ORDERED this 27th day of February, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia. 
 
 
Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 63     Filed 02/27/25     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.63.0.pdf

Size

139,600 bytes

SHA-256

ea67ce7d4b68d3b4fc55e8d9e26bbbb6263c356311e45cf39923ce5e8a429973

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.63.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)