United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Northern Division
CHARLES B. KORNMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a
child and two counts of abusive sexual contact of a child. He
was sentenced to a total sentence of 540 months imprisonment
on May 14, 2018. He appealed his convictions and sentence and
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed. United States v. Keys. 918 F.3d 982 (8th
Cir. March 22, 2019).
has filed a motion for discovery materials to support a claim
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The United States Supreme Court
set forth the history of the discovery rule applicable to
federal defendants seeking documents in support of motions to
A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in
federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of
ordinary course. Thus, in Harris v. Nelson. 394 U.S.
286, 295, 89 S.Ct. 1082, 1088-1089, 22 L.Ed.2d 281 (1969), we
concluded that the broad discovery provisions of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply in habeas proceedings.
We held, however, that the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1651, gave federal courts the power to fashion appropriate
modes of procedure, including discovery, to dispose of habeas
petitions as law and justice require. We then recommended
that the rule-making machinery be invoked to formulate rules
of practice with respect to federal habeas corpus
proceedings. Accordingly, in 1976, we promulgated and
Congress adopted the Rules Governing § 2254 [and §
Bracy v. Gramley. 520 U.S. 899, 904, 117 S.Ct. 1793,
1796-97, 138 L.Ed.2d 97 (1997) (cleaned up).
6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts now provides, in part, that a
district judge "may, for good cause, authorize a party
to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure or Civil Procedure, or in accordance with the
practices and principles of law." "In the absence
of a showing of good cause for discovery, the district court
[acts] within its discretion in denying [a] request for
production of documents." Smith v. United
States. 618 F.2d 507, 509 (8th Cir. 1980)
(citing Rule 6).
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), "[p]arties
may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged,
that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party."
No. motion to vacate under § 2255 is pending so the
requested documents are not relevant to any pending claim.
discovery request is a blanket request for evidence, some of
which has no connection to his case. For example, he requests
a copy of any evidence log and reports concerning any weapon
used, taken, or found in relation to his case. There was no
evidence submitted at trial of any weapon associated with
defendant's crimes nor was there any mention of a weapon
in the presentence report. A weapon was never an issue in his
case. Defendant further requests any tests results, including
DNA results, which link the defendant to the crime or crime
scene. No. such evidence was ever submitted or mentioned in
this case, other than the government's proposed exhibit
showing one of the victim's DNA parentage for the purpose
of establishing her status as an Indian and thus this
Court's jurisdiction over the crimes charged concerning
that victim. No. such evidence was necessary since the
defendant stipulated to the victims' status as Indians.
Defendant also requests videos or pictures linking him to the
crime scene or committing any crime. This was a case of
aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact involving
two victims over the course of two years. The alleged abuse
occurred in a bedroom defendant shared every day with one
victim and occasionally with the other victim. There was no
evidence that pictures or videos existed which were relevant
to whether the defendant committed the crimes charged.
Defendant has not set forth any good cause for his broad
discovery request. He has not raised any specific allegations
which would show that he may, if the facts are fully
developed, be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to
relief under § 2255. See Bracy v. Gramlev. 520
U.S. at 908-09, 117 S.Ct. at 1799.
requests that both defense counsel and the government be
ordered to produce "any and all information regarding
the case," including statements, reports or interviews
"by any person" accusing the defendant of a crime.
He also seeks NCIC (National Crime Information Center)
records showing criminal history of the accusers and
witnesses. He seeks all of the above information "for
the purposes of review and support of the Defendants (sic)
facts being alleged in the proceeding (sic) § 2255
has not filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant's
criminal case is closed. Therefore, this Court has no
jurisdiction to grant the defendant's motion. United
States v. Gleason. 753 F.2d 83, 85 (8th Cir. 1985).
"Once a judgment of conviction has been entered, a
prison sentence has been imposed and the defendant has begun
the service of his term, jurisdiction of the court over the
defendant and the criminal proceedings comes to an end except
for such remedies as may be provided by the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or the all-writs
section, 28 U.S.C. § 1651." United States v.
Gernie. 228 F.Supp. 329, 332 (S.D.N.Y. 1964).
Accord, United States v. Garcia-Herrera.894 F.3d
1219, 1220 (10th Cir. 2018) (district court has no
jurisdiction to grant post-conviction motion for discovery),
United States v. Wahi, 850 F.3d 296, 299 (7th Cir.
2017) (the district court's statutory criminal
jurisdiction does not extend beyond the entry of final
judgment), and United States v. Asakevich, 810 F.3d
418, 420 (6th Cir. 2016) (following entry of a final criminal
judgment, district court has no authority to entertain a
request for relief in support of a § 2255 motion [in
this case a motion for extension of time to file] prior to
commencement of an independent collateral proceeding).
attorney was appointed and fees were paid pursuant to the
Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. His appointment
has ended and he is not entitled to bill for services,
including costs of copies. Therefore, he is under no
obligation to provide anything to the defendant. ...