Fiorito v. Fikes

Background

Michael Fiorito, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking habeas relief related to his federal imprisonment. The petition challenged two 2016 prison incident reports from FCI-Ashland and a 2022 incident report from FCI-Sandstone. Fiorito alleged that the FCI-Ashland reports were retaliatory, that prison staff violated his due-process rights when issuing and reviewing them, and that he was not guilty of the alleged violations. He sought expungement of the two FCI-Ashland reports and recalculation of his Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (PATTERN) score.

Fiorito moved to compel production of a Bureau of Prisons pamphlet or guide and other documents concerning implementation of the First Step Act and changes to PATTERN scoring. He also requested subpoenas for documents and an extension of time to respond to the respondent’s opposition. In his reply, he additionally requested 60 days to file supplemental briefing concerning Kisor v. Wilkie, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, and United States v. Wooden.

Court’s analysis

The court construed the motion to compel as a request for authorization to conduct discovery. It explained that a habeas petitioner is not ordinarily entitled to discovery and that discovery may be authorized for good cause. The court concluded that Fiorito had not shown good cause for the documents or subpoenas he sought. It found that the requested discovery extended beyond the claims on which Fiorito sought habeas relief. The court also noted that, to the extent the documents were publicly available, the order did not prevent Fiorito from accessing them himself.

The court construed the extension request as including a request for permission to file a reply to a nondispositive motion. Although local rules generally required permission before filing such a reply, the court exercised its discretion to consider Fiorito’s reply on this occasion and cautioned that future unauthorized memoranda might be disregarded.

The court denied the request for supplemental briefing. It observed that Kisor had been issued more than two and a half years before Fiorito filed his petition, and stated that it was not immediately apparent how Wooden or West Virginia related to the issues in the case.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung ordered that Fiorito’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents was DENIED. Fiorito’s Request for Extension of Time was GRANTED IN PART insofar as the court permitted and considered his reply, and was OTHERWISE DENIED. The court stated that all prior consistent orders remained in effect.