Khan v. United States

Background

Hassan Khan filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his sentence based on alleged ineffective assistance of his defense counsel, Jeffrey Louis Greco. Khan alleged that Greco failed to develop mitigating facts, present scientific research, challenge the severity reflected in the guideline calculation, and counter the government’s claims about harm to the victim. The court had granted Khan’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

This order addressed Khan’s separate motion for discovery. He sought records from Greco, including all time records, notes and memoranda, and communications concerning Khan’s representation. He also sought communications between Greco and the government, invoking Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 and the disclosure principles associated with Brady v. Maryland.

Legal standard

Under Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, a court may allow discovery for good cause. The person seeking discovery must identify the requested documents and provide specific reasons for seeking them. The court explained that good cause requires specific allegations giving it reason to believe that, if the facts were fully developed, the person might be able to establish entitlement to relief. Generalized requests or a search for documents merely to see whether they might reveal a claim are not enough.

The court also described the two-part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: the lawyer’s performance must have fallen outside the range of professionally competent assistance, and the deficient performance must have caused prejudice.

The requested discovery from the government

The court found that Khan relied on conclusory assertions that the government’s role in plea bargaining and sentencing made all communications between Greco and the government relevant. Khan also acknowledged that his request to the government was mostly duplicative of his request to Greco.

The court ruled that Khan did not identify any government discovery request that was not duplicative or explain specifically how any requested material would advance his claim. The court therefore found that Khan had not established good cause for discovery from the government.

The requested discovery from Greco

The court found that Khan did not connect his specific requests for Greco’s time records, notes, memoranda, and communications to the elements of his ineffective-assistance claim. Khan did not explain how the time records would be relevant to his allegation that Greco failed to provide mitigation advocacy, identify a particular document that Greco had failed to provide, or explain how any such document would advance his claim.

The court also rejected Khan’s generalized assertions about Greco’s failure to obtain additional psychological, psychiatric, or mitigation reports and Greco’s reference to a sociopath. According to the court, those assertions did not provide the specific allegations required to show good cause for discovery.

Disposition

Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied Khan’s motion for discovery in connection with his § 2255 motion. The order did not decide whether Greco was constitutionally ineffective or whether Khan was entitled to relief from his sentence; it decided only that Khan had not shown good cause for the requested discovery.

Reviewer note on the judge

The supplied metadata identifies Jed Rakoff as the judge, but the opinion text is signed by Kevin Nathaniel Fox, United States Magistrate Judge. This summary uses the judge named in the signed opinion.