Hanley v. LeJeune

Background

Shane Eric Hanley, who represented himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The order addresses four motions: a motion to clarify and object, a motion requesting permission for early discovery, a motion for an extension of time, and a motion to amend the petition. The respondent is Warden LeJeune, identified in the caption as the warden of FCI Sandstone.

Clarification and objection

The court denied Hanley’s motion to clarify and object. The motion challenged the respondent’s description of the petition in a request for additional time to respond. Because the court had already granted that request, it concluded there was nothing further to grant concerning Hanley’s motion. The court stated that Hanley could address arguments in the respondent’s response in his reply.

Early discovery

The court denied Hanley’s motion requesting permission for early discovery. Hanley sought email records, notes, and internal Bureau of Prisons memoranda concerning the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program from January 1, 2022, through the present, as well as sworn declarations from two Bureau of Prisons employees. Under Rule 6(a) of the rules governing petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court explained that a habeas petitioner must show good cause before obtaining discovery. The court found that Hanley had not shown good cause because his requests were broad and he had not explained how the requested information would affect the case.

The court also stated that it would not consider Hanley’s reply supporting the discovery motion. The reply was filed without the permission required for a reply concerning a non-dispositive motion, and Hanley had not satisfied the applicable meet-and-confer requirement. The court emphasized that representing himself did not excuse him from following court rules, laws, and orders.

Amendment and extension of time

The court granted Hanley’s motion to amend the petition and denied as moot his motion for an extension of time. Hanley sought to add an argument requesting the return of $108.60 allegedly taken from his prison account without supporting authority. He said the additional argument would show his injury.

Although Hanley did not follow the local rule governing amendment motions, the court decided not to require a separate amended petition. Instead, it treated the additional argument in the amendment motion, together with the original petition, as the amended petition. The court found no compelling reason to deny amendment and concluded that the respondent would not be prejudiced because the respondent would have an opportunity to respond.

Result and next steps

Judge Tony N. Leung permitted the respondent to file either a complete amended response or a supplement addressing only the permitted amendment within 28 days of the order. If Hanley files a reply, it must be filed within 28 days after the respondent’s filing. The order states that no further submissions will be permitted unless authorized by court order. This order does not decide the underlying petition’s merits.