Opinion
CRIMINAL 11-00062-06
10-28-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STEPHEN KINNEY (06)
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
ORDER
S. MAURICE HICKS, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
In considering the foregoing Renewed Motion to Waive Fees (Record Document 873), the Court relies on statutory language and precedent in making its determination. The Fifth Circuit has held that an application for habeas relief, a § 2255 motion, or another collateral-review application must be pending at the time a defendant requests documentation under § 2250. See U.S. v. Wiley, No. 22-50557, 2023 WL 5378898, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2023); U.S. v. Hernandez-Cuellar, No. 21-40051,2021 WL 4484963, at *1 (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2021). There must be some type of live action when a district court is considering a motion for production of documents. See Hernandez-Cuellar, 2021 WL 4484963, at *1.
Here, Defendant Kinney has no habeas relief, § 2255 motion, or other collateral review application pending. His lack of another pending motion or application is fatal to his motion. Even if the Court was willing to consider the motion despite the lack of a pending live action, which it is not, the decision to provide Defendant Kinney with copies of the requested documents “rests within the [C]ourt's sound discretion.” Thomas v. Vannoy, No. 20-298, 2021 WL 12174338, at *1 (E.D. La. July 27, 2021). See U.S. v. Marzon, No. 99-070, 2005 WL 1155773, at *1 (E.D. La. May 5, 2005). Defendant Kinney does not meet the standard under § 2250, which requires a showing of need and relevance for these requested documents. His claims that the Government fraudulently induced him into entering into the second plea agreement and misled the Court into imposing a higher sentence are frivolous. Defendant Kinney is merely arguing the merits of his claim and generally asserting that the requested documents would prove his claim, which is not sufficient under Fifth Circuit precedent. See Hernandez-Cuellar, 2021 WL 4484963, at *1.
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that the Renewed Motion to Waive Fees is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.