Opinion
8:23-cv-291-WFJ-AAS
11-27-2023
BYRON A. JONES, III, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPTARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent.
ORDER
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter comes before the Court on Byron Jones' Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Upon careful review of the record, the Court finds that Mr. Jones is entitled to discovery and an evidentiary hearing with respect to his Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) claim. See Dkt. 1 at 2836. Indeed, “such a hearing could enable [Mr. Jones] to prove the [P]etition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle [him] to federal habeas relief” under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 474 (2007).
Eleventh Circuit “precedent says that when a petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing at every appropriate stage in state court and was denied a hearing on the claim entirely, the petitioner has satisfied the diligence requirement for purposes of avoiding Section 2254(e)(2).” Pope v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 680 F.3d 1271, 1289 (11th Cir. 2012) (collecting cases).
Both Mr. Jones and Respondent shall have ninety days to conduct discovery with the limited purpose of supplementing the factual record surrounding Mr. Jones' Giglio claim. The Court anticipates that this may include deposing co-defendants Vincent Gonzalez and Azalea Mendoza, as well the state prosecutors involved with said co-defendants' plea deals. While further discovery efforts may be necessary, they shall not extend to other matters raised in Mr. Jones' Petition. Approximately ten days after the ninety-day discovery period expires, which will commence upon the docketing of this Order, the Court will hold a status conference.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
(1) Mr. Jones is granted discovery and an evidentiary hearing as to his Giglio claim.
(2) The parties have ninety days to conduct discovery.
DONE AND ORDERED.