Thomas v. United States
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-09756
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thomas v. United States, Judge Nathan denied as moot Thomas’s file request and denied discovery related to his Section 2255 petition.
Gary Thomas, his former lawyers Dale Smith and Kye Walker, the United States, and the co-defendants whose privileged materials Thomas sought.
What happened
In Thomas v. United States, Gary Thomas asked the court to order his former lawyers, Dale Smith and Kye Walker, to provide materials from his case. Both lawyers told the court they had already provided their complete case files to Thomas.
The court denied the request for the files as moot because the files had already been provided. It also denied Thomas’s request for discovery, finding that he had not shown the required good reason for discovery in a petition under Section 2255. The court said much of the requested information was public or had already been produced, while the rest was unrelated to his claims or unsupported.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also denied Thomas’s request for government confirmations about surveillance under 18 U.S.C. § 3504, because the government said it had met its discovery obligations. The court ordered the government to mail Thomas a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-09756
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 31, 2020
Background
Gary Thomas, identified in the order as the movant, asked the court to order his former lawyers, Dale Smith and Kye Walker, to produce materials relating to his case. The order also addresses Thomas’s requests for discovery in his petition under Section 2255, the federal procedure used to challenge a federal conviction or sentence.
File-production request
The court stated that both former lawyers represented that they had produced the entirety of their case files to Thomas. The court therefore denied Thomas’s motion for an order requiring production of those materials as moot, meaning that the requested relief was no longer necessary.
Discovery request
The court explained that discovery in a Section 2255 petition is permitted only when the movant shows “good cause,” under Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. The court found that Thomas had not made that showing. It stated that much of the requested information was publicly available or had already been provided in discovery to Thomas’s former lawyers, who had then provided it to Thomas. The court found that the remaining requests were either unrelated to Thomas’s claims or unsupported.
Thomas sought privileged materials from his co-defendants, Mr. Parrilla and Mr. Tang Yuk, particularly concerning severance. The court noted that Thomas did not directly challenge the denial of severance in his petition and found that the privileged materials would not bear on his other claims, including his claim under Strickland, the legal standard governing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
Thomas also sought government affirmations concerning surveillance under 18 U.S.C. § 3504. The government represented that it had already complied with its discovery obligations, including obligations concerning surveillance under Brady, the rule requiring disclosure of material favorable to the defense. The court therefore denied Thomas’s Section 3504 demand, citing United States v. Aref, 285 F. App’x 784, 793 (2d Cir. 2008).
Disposition
The court denied as moot Thomas’s motion seeking materials from his former lawyers. It denied Thomas’s motion for discovery and denied his demand under Section 3504. The court ordered the government to mail Thomas a copy of the order and directed the government to notify the court within three days if mailing was impracticable so that the court could arrange an alternative procedure.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.