From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Grant

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, London Division
Nov 2, 2005
Criminal Case No. 04-03-DCR, Motion Filed As: Civil Action No. 05-486-DCR (E.D. Ky. Nov. 2, 2005)

Opinion

Criminal Case No. 04-03-DCR, $2255 Motion Filed As: Civil Action No. 05-486-DCR.

November 2, 2005


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


This matter is before the Court upon the motion entitled "Renewed Motion for Documents and Transcripts From Clerk's Office" (DE#36) by the pro se prisoner, Robert J. Grant.

In his $2255 motion, Grant alleges "ineffective assistance of counsel" because: 1) counsel allegedly "misadvised" him that he would get concurrent sentences, 2) counsel did not object to the PSI which, according to defendant, reflected an incorrect "Criminal Category VI" because his prior drug convictions were allegedly not "crimes of violence", and 3) counsel failed to appeal the sentence imposed. As the defendant claimed error in his sentence and complained that counsel misadvised him with respect to his sentence, the defendant was provided a copy of his plea agreement (DE#24) and the sentencing transcript (DE#32), both of which were relevant to his sentencing.

Defendant now makes the generalized claim that if the Court had "conducted a proper examination of petitioner pursuant to Rule #11, the court would have discovered that petitioner's decision to enter a plea of guilty was based on faulty legal advice and promises from defense counsel." DE#36, p. 2-3. He asks for copies of the transcript of his plea hearing (DE#18) and his notice of appeal. In the first place, review of the record does not reflect any notice of appeal. Secondly, the prisoner's own statement shows why the transcript of the plea hearing does not contain anything of relevance to defendant's $2255 arguments. Moreover, prisoners will not be provided copies of documents merely to conduct a "fishing" expedition. Absent any showing of relevancy or particularized need, "blanket requests" are generally denied. See, e.g, United States v. Newsome, 257 F. Supp. 201 (N.D. Ga. 1966); United States v. Williams, 427 F.Supp. 72 (D.C. Del. 1976); Bozeman, supra, 354 FSupp. 1262.

Accordingly,

It is ORDERED that the "Renewed Motion for Documents and Transcripts From Clerk's Office" (DE#36) by the pro se prisoner Robert J. Grant is DENIED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Grant

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, London Division
Nov 2, 2005
Criminal Case No. 04-03-DCR, Motion Filed As: Civil Action No. 05-486-DCR (E.D. Ky. Nov. 2, 2005)
Case details for

U.S. v. Grant

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. ROBERT J. GRANT, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, London Division

Date published: Nov 2, 2005

Citations

Criminal Case No. 04-03-DCR, Motion Filed As: Civil Action No. 05-486-DCR (E.D. Ky. Nov. 2, 2005)