Opinion
2:17-CR-131-JVB-JEM
12-13-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RICKEY DALE BROWN, JR., Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Discovery and Case File [DE 71] filed by Defendant Rickey Brown on December 8, 2021.
In a prior motion, Brown asked the Court to assist him in obtaining documents regarding this case from his prior counsel, Arlington Foley, who represented Brown in this case from the arraignment to Brown's sentencing. Foley responded that he thoroughly searched his disposed files in his office and storage area and was unable to find anything related to Brown and this case. With nothing to turn over, the Court denied the motion as moot on November 30, 2021.
In the current motion, Brown renews his request for the case file and also asks for the Court's assistance in procuring discovery from the “government or clerk of courts.” Brown indicates that he “wishes to review said documents in an attempt to file for 2255 or 2241 relief.” Brown states that he cannot file for either for of relief without the documents he seeks, essentially admitting that his request for documents is merely a fishing expedition, which is not sufficient for ordering discovery in a closed criminal case. See U.S. v. Curtner, No. 06-CR-20002, 2008 WL 905923, at *1 (C.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2008) (“Defendant is not entitled to conduct a fishing expedition.”); U.S. v. Tolliver, No. 04-CR-40014, 2007 WL 611236, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2007) (“Bald allegations that he needs the documents now will not do.”); see also U.S. v. Stewart, Nos. 2:09-CR-42, 2:13-CV-454, 2014 WL 174664 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 16, 2014) (denying discovery request as merely a fishing expedition after the defendant filed a motion under § 2255).
Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion for Discovery and Case File [DE 71].
SO ORDERED.