Jenkins v. United States

• Decision Date: 06 February 2023
• Docket Number: 20-CV-233-SMY
• Citation: Jenkins v. United States, 20-CV-233-SMY (S.D. Ill. Feb 06, 2023)
• Parties: ANTWON D. JENKINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

1

ANTWON D. JENKINS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

No. 20-CV-233-SMY

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 6, 2023

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STACI M. YANDLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

PetitionerAntwon D. Jenkins has filed various motions in the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas action that are currently pending before the Court: Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing(Doc 31); Renewed Motion for Transcripts and Discovery(Doc. 32) Motion for Status and Copies (Doc. 33); Motion to SupplementMotion for Release pending Habeas Review pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3143(b)(Doc. 34);Motion to Supplement Medical Records for Motion for Release pending Habeas Review (Doc 35); Motion to SupplementEmergency Motion for Release pending Habeas Review (Doc. 36); Motion for Release pending Habeas Review per 18 U.S.C. 3143(b)(Doc. 37);Motion to Supplement Exhibit to the pending Habeas Petition (Doc. 38) and a Sealed Motion(Doc. 39).

Procedural and Factual Background

A jury convicted Jenkins of kidnapping based in part on the testimony of his victim, A.H., that Jenkins assaulted him, poured gasoline on him, threatened him at gunpoint, drove him in a truck from Illinois to Missouri, threatened to execute him by the side of the road, and left him by the side of a Missouri highway.United States of America v. Antwon D. Jenkins,12-cr-30239-DRH(Doc. 244, pp. 57-99)(S.D. Ill. Jul. 28, 2014).Jenkins filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Petition to challenge his conviction for kidnapping, arguing that his counsel was ineffective and that the facts elicited at trial did not meet the elements of the kidnapping offense (Doc. 1).Specifically, he argues that his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the Government improperly using information from his proffer agreement to convict him, and that his kidnapping conviction should be vacated because the evidence fails to meet the elements of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1).

Pending Motions

Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing(Doc. 31)

Jenkins' Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED.Based on its review of the filings, the Court concludes that the issues in this case can be resolved on the existing record; an evidentiary hearing is not necessary.See, Cooper v. United States,378 F.3d 638 641-642(7th Cir.1987).

Renewed Motion for Transcripts and Discovery(Doc. 32)

Jenkins' Renewed Motion for Transcripts and Discovery is DENIED with respect to his request for further discovery for the same reasons noted in this Court's Order dated June 22, 2021(Doc. 28).Because Jenkins' habeas claims rest on his contention that Government improperly used his proffer agreement and derivative evidence from his proffer agreement against him and that the evidence elicited at trial was insufficient to satisfy the elements of the federal kidnapping statute, discovery beyond a copy of his proffer agreement is not relevant.Hubanks v. Frank, 392 F.3d 926, 933-934(7th Cir.2004)(Petitioners must show “good cause” for additional discovery in habeas matters).

Jenkins also requests copies of trial transcripts from his criminal case, including opening statements, closing arguments, and testimony of witnesses.Defendants have no constitutional right to a complimentary copy of any document in their court files.SeeUnited States v. Groce,838 F.Supp. 411, 413-414(E.D. Wis.1993).

Before providing copies free of charge, a district court may require the requestor to show: (1) that he has exhausted all other means of access to his files (i.e., through his trial and appellate counsel); (2) that he is financially unable to secure access to his court files (i.e., through a showing similar to that required in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) which includes a certified copy of the prisoner's trust account for the previous six-month period prior to filing); and (3) that the documents requested are necessary for some specific non-frivolous court action.SeeUnited States v. Wilkinson,618 F.2d 1215, 1218-19(7th Cir.1980);Groce,838 F.Supp. at 413-14.These minimal requirements do not impose any substantial burden to prisoners who desire their records be sent to them at government expense.

Jenkins has not made the requisite showing - he has not demonstrated that he has exhausted other means of acquiring the documents, such as contacting his former counsel or having friends or family print it out and send it to him in prison.If he wishes to pay for a copy of the requested documents, he will need to send a letter to the Clerk of Court and request the cost of production.

Motion for Status and Copies (Doc. 33)

Jenkins' Motion for Status and Copies is GRANTED insofar as the status of this case is reflected herein.As a one-time courtesy, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Jenkins a copy of the docket sheet in this matter.

Motion to SupplementMotion for Release Pending Habeas Review (Doc. 34) and Motion for Release pending Habeas Review (Doc. 37)

Jenkins' Motion to SupplementMotion for Release pending Habeas Review pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3143(b) and Motion for Release pending Habeas Review per 18 U.S.C. 3143(b) seek Jenkins' immediate release from incarceration pending resolution of his habeas petition.He invokes 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b) which does not apply to convicted defendants seeking postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.Cherek v. United States,767 F.2d 335, 337(7th Cir.1985).While federal district judges have the “inherent power to admit [§ 2255] applicants to bail,”this Court declines to do so given the gravity of Jenkins' kidnapping conviction and the threat that he poses to public safety based on the testimony detailed above.

Motion to Supplement Medical Records for Motion for Release pending Habeas Review (Doc. 35) and Motion to SupplementEmergency Motion for Release pending Habeas Review (Doc. 36)

...