Clerks Note: duplicate copy received — USA v. Staveley (Dkt. 112, D.R.I. No. 1:20-mj-00034, docketed in No. 1:20-cr-00074)

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 112     Filed 11/18/22     Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
1056
RECEIVED
NOV 18 2022
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF R.I.
11/5/22
page 1
United States District Court
District of Rhode Island

United States of America
v.
David Staveley
Case No. CR-00074-MSM

Motion for Recusal
of Judge Mary S. McElroy

The following motion is presented to the honorable court by the
Defendant Pro Se. The Defendant was denied counsel by the court
and he is not an attorney nor does he have any legal experience.
The Defendant is submitting this motion without advice of counsel,
while incarcerated, without any court notification in the form
of current court docket, electronic filings, court decisions, etc,
in the last 50 days, with limited resources and during Covid-19
protocals creating a limited ability for the Defendant to communicate,
garner information or to achieve any level of success in this matter.

Defendant requests the recusal of Judge Mary S. McElroy from this
proceeding and as reasons therefore states as follows.

In the Defendants view the Court has engaged in a pattern
of prejudical conduct toward the Defendant and his
rights as evidenced by the following.

On 1/6/2021 Defendant Attorney Mark Josephs filed a Motion
to withdraw after representing the Defendant for (8) eight
months. During that time Attorney Josephs filed not once
motion and as far as the Defendant understands took
no other action. Never the less, Judge Mary S. McElroy
granted his Oral Motion to withdraw on 1/11/21 of which
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 112     Filed 11/18/22     Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
1057
11/5/22
page 2
no notice was given to the Defendant, no assent of the
Defendant was obtained, nor an opportunity to be heard.
It was not until February when the Defendant was notified
by Court appointed Counsel that Josephs was dismissed.
Judge McElroy additionally appointed counsel without the
Knowledge or assent of defendant.

On 11/15/2021 the Defendant filed Pro Se a motion for leave
to Appeal In Forma Pauperis. On 11/18/2021 Judge Mary
S. McElroy granted the motion in less than 72 hours
demonstrating the ability to recognize the Defendant's
rights when desired.

On 2/4/2022 a Motion to Return Personal Property
was granted by the Court. In October, 2022 the
Defendant filed a Motion for Contempt as the
government in a period of over (8) eight months did
not return the Defendant's property including a wallet and
a valid Massachusetts Drivers license. Defendant's mother
repeatedly made independant attempts to retrieve the
missing property, that numerous sources identified to be
in the government's possession, from U.S. Marshalls (Alvin
Silver) and FBI (Christine Grady) to no avail. The
Defendant's Motion for Contempt was filed and despite
the government failure to provide justifiable delay the
Court has failed to enter an order finding contempt
and Ordering the appropriate sanction. In fact, the
government's filing in this matter contained nothing
but unverified hearsay and lies regarding alledged
Conduct by a third party.
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 112     Filed 11/18/22     Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
1058
11/5/22
page 3
On 8/15/2022 the Defendant, who is indigent, filed a
Motion to Obtain Court Appointed Counsel in preparation
for a "Collateral Hearing" mandated by the Appeals Court.
Judge Mary S. McElroy Denied Counsel siting (3) three
factors set forth by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
However, the Defendant is not an attorney, is/was not
aware of these factors and as he is incarcerated
has/had no resources to discover them. Judge McElroy
was obviously aware of the Defendant's situation, but yet
denied counsel. Arguably in any case the Defendant
would meet the (3) three factors cited by Judge McElroy
for the denial in her order of 8/17/22.

On 8/6/22 the First Circuit Court of Appeals rendered an
opinion on the Defendant's Appeal, recommending a
"Collateral Hearing" siting the deficiency in the record
placed before it regarding the allegations made by the
Defendant in Section 2255. On 8/25/22 the First Circuit
Court of Appeals issued a Mandate.

On 8/29/22 the Defendant, Pro Se, filed (5) five motions.
Items 79-83 on the Docket.
79 - Motion to Vacate - 2255
80 - Improper Communication by District Court Chief Justice
81 - Malicious Prosecution
82 - U.S. Attorney failed to provide Exculpatory Evidence
83 - Motion Identifying Prejudice / Egregious Performance

Judge Mary S. McElroy consolidated motions 79-82-
and 83 on 9/15/2022.
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 112     Filed 11/18/22     Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
1059
11/5/2022
page 4
On 9/12/2022 - Motion by Prosecution, Requesting an order
finding a waiver of Attorney-Client privilege in 2255
proceeding and permitting prior defendant counsel
to discuss issues raised by 2255 petition and a
request to continue the response date by the prosecution/
government memorandum sixty (60) days, with responses
due by 9/26/2022.
On 9/15/2022, Judge Mary S. McElroy granted the prosecutions
motion prior to the expiration of the time allowed for
responses and prior to receipt of the Defendant's
Objection seeking to limit the Attorney-Client privilege
waiver. On 9/21/2022 the Defendant filed a motion
seeking relief from the Order granting the waiver of
Attorney-Client privilege and a sixty (60) day extension
without having considered of objection thereto.

On 9/15/2022, Judge Mary S. McElroy denied (Court Docket)
Motion 88, to perserve communication between AUSA
Lee Vilker, Defense Counsel and other government law
enforcement. Despite the fact that those communication
bear directly on critical allegations in the petition
under section 2255 regarding the Actions of AUSA Lee
Vilker and Attorney Jason Knight (Defense Counsel)
which prejudice the Defendant in the underlying
Prosecution. For instance, AUSA Vilker indicated
he had provided Defense Counsel with the evidence
in the underlying prosecution, but all he revealed
was emails not the attachments that are the critical
element of the Defendant's claim.
Case 1:20-cr-00074-WES-LDA     Document 112     Filed 11/18/22     Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
1060
11/5/2022
page 5
On September 15, 2022, Judge Mary S. McElroy denied
defendant's motion to perserve communication between
Judge McElroy and the Chief Justice of the Rhode
Island District Court as it relates to motion 80
(improper communication by Chief Justice) which bore
directly on Defendant's acceptance of a plea.

Despite the Courts knowledge that the defendant is
incarcerated and has been denied counsel, the Court
has failed to provide the defendant, for a period
of over (50) fifty days with copies of the Docket and
relevant filings and decisions which directly effect
his rights in this matter, and which heretofore
defendant received on a regular basis prior to September
15, 2022. At a critical time in preparation for a
"collateral hearing", with multiple issues, without the
guidance of counsel and limited resources due to
incarceration, the Court has left the Defendant in
the dark as to issues which could prejudice his
right and effect his liberty. These omissions are
the responsibility of Judge Mary S. McElroy.

In the Defendant's view, the foregoing recitation of
events in this matter are evidence of a pattern of
disregard for the Defendant's rights and may continue
to work as prejudice against the Defendant with
respect to the prior filings and decisions in this
matter and the as yet to be scheduled "Collateral
Hearing" which the defendant believes has
been unduly delayed.


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.112.0.pdf

Size

789,718 bytes

SHA-256

abbca75d39d8495154c8b35dae66eb178e4af93eb94fd864dffd3974dcfa714a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.rid.49679.112.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)