Order Denying Post-Conviction Discovery Motions — United States v. Gladys Harun (3:23-cr-3)

Full text

  Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE     Document 55     Filed 01/24/25        Page 1 of 5




                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIAs DtSTPKTT tXHJRT
                                                            SOUTHERN OlSTRlCT OF GEORtSIA
                           DUBLIN DIVISION


                                                                JAN 2 4 2025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                                                      RLED
     V.                                          CR 323-003


GLADYS HARUN




                                 ORDER




     On April 27, 2023, Defendant Gladys Harun entered into a plea

agreement whereby she waived her right to collaterally attack her

conviction and sentence except that she may claim ineffective

assistance of counsel.         Nevertheless, Defendant has made known

that she intends to file a motion to vacate, set aside or correct

her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 through several recent

filings.    Defendant is       also   aware    that   the   Antiterrorism                   and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") provides a one-year

statute of limitations for filing a § 2255 motion.                    In this case,

because no direct appeal was filed, the statute of limitations

period began to run fourteen days after the judgment was entered
  Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE        Document 55    Filed 01/24/25       Page 2 of 5




on January 26, 2024,^ i.e., February 9, 2024.                    See 28 U.S.C. §

2255(f); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1).

       On January 2, 2025, the Court denied Defendant's motion to

extend the time within which to file her § 2255 motion.                         Rather

than file her motion. Defendant has filed four additional motions.

The motion for reconsideration for extension of time within which

to file the § 2255 motion (doc. no. 52) is summarily DENIED.

       Defendant has moved to compel Jackson Hewitt Tax Service

Company to "surrender various franchisee business documents."                         The

Court cannot discern any nexus between these documents and a claim

of ineffective assistance of counsel, nor does Defendant provide

one.    Accordingly, this motion to compel (doc. no. 54) is DENIED.

        The remaining two motions are a motion to compel defense

counsel to surrender their case files to Defendant and a motion to


compel    the    Clerk   of    Court    to    provide    certain        documents     to

Defendant.


        From   the   Clerk    of   Court,    Defendant   seeks      a   copy    of    the

following documents:         (1) "motion of discovery"; (2) "warrants for

seizing bank accounts"; and (3) "warrants for seizing her internet

IPP address and downloading items from her online activity."                      (Doc.

No.    53.)     An   indigent      defendant    does     not   have      an    absolute




1  While Defendant was sentenced on January 23, 2024, but the
Judgment and Commitment Order was not entered until January 26,
2024.
  Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE      Document 55       Filed 01/24/25     Page 3 of 5



constitutional right to a free copy of a transcript or a court

record   for   use   in   a    collateral         proceeding.         Jefferies      v.

Wainwright, 794 F.2d 1516, 1518 {11^^ Cir. 1986) ("Denial of a free

transcript to an indigent defendant is unconstitutional only where

the   transcript is    valuable        to   the   defense    and      no functional

alternatives exist."); see also United States v. MacCollom, 426

U.S. 317 (1976).     Rather, a defendant must show that the requested

transcript or document is necessary to decide an issue presented

by suit or appeal.    See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (A defendant may receive

a free transcript only if the court "certifies that the suit or

appeal is not frivolous and that the transcript is needed to decide

the issue presented by the suit or appeal."); see also United

States   V.   Mitchell,   2008    WL   824226      (M.D.   Fla.      Mar.   26,   2008)

(stating that a criminal defendant is "not statutorily authorized,

as a matter of course, to receive a copy of . . . documents free

of charge post-appeal").         Here, Defendant does not have a pending

collateral proceeding and thus, she cannot show that the requested

documents are necessary to a particular claim.                More specifically,

in the absence of a § 2255 motion, the Court cannot assess the

relevance that these requested documents would have to a claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel.                The Court will not provide

documents anticipatorily.         Accordingly, the motion to compel the

Court to release the requested documents (doc. no. 53) is DENIED.
     Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE            Document 55        Filed 01/24/25    Page 4 of 5




        with     respect       to    her       attorneys,      Defendant       retained       four

attorneys in the case prior to sentencing.                         At sentencing, she was

represented by a fifth attorney, who was appointed under the

Criminal Justice Act.                She has moved to compel the production of

her case file from four of the five attorneys.^                          Defendant's motion

to compel, however, suffers from the same problem as her other

motions.       Defendant has provided the Court with no specific basis

to    do   so.         Factually,         Defendant     has     failed    to    explain       what

documents        she    seeks from         a     particular     attorney       that   would     be

relevant to a particular claim.                         The Court has not even been

apprised       which      of        her    five     attorneys       had    been       allegedly

ineffective.           The   Court        will    not   allow    Defendant      to    conduct   a


"fishing expedition" in this manner.                            Moreover, it is unclear

whether the Court has the authority to issue an order in a closed

criminal case to attorneys who no longer represent a defendant.

The proper course of action is for Defendant to file a habeas

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and invoke the civil discovery

process upon a showing of good cause.                          In other words, absent a

legitimate issue before the Court for which the attorney's case

file is material, a client's request for her attorney's case file

is a matter better left to the attorney and the client.                                Upon the




2    Defendant does not name Attorney Teri Lee Thompson in her motion
to compel.
  Case 3:23-cr-00003-DHB-BKE   Document 55   Filed 01/24/25   Page 5 of 5




foregoing, Defendant's motion to compel production of her case

files from her prior attorneys (doc. no. 51) is DENIED.

     ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this                    of January,

2025.




                                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.55.0.pdf

Size

331,703 bytes

SHA-256

b8dcc48ef3833799b7e229be9f17f65fc0f440232821cb405d202eb15805a2ed

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.89545.55.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)