U.S. v. LOVE, 3:99-573-JFA. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20120601713
Visitors: 8
Filed: May 29, 2012
Latest Update: May 29, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr. District Judge. In an order filed July 22, 2011, this court denied the defendant's motion to compel the government to produce copies of discovery, specifically the serial numbers of the "buy money" from his 1999 conviction. The court noted that there was no pending action or issue before the court. On September 9, 2011, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider this court's denial of his motion to compel, to which the government has responded in opposition. As t
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr. District Judge. In an order filed July 22, 2011, this court denied the defendant's motion to compel the government to produce copies of discovery, specifically the serial numbers of the "buy money" from his 1999 conviction. The court noted that there was no pending action or issue before the court. On September 9, 2011, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider this court's denial of his motion to compel, to which the government has responded in opposition. As th..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr. District Judge.
In an order filed July 22, 2011, this court denied the defendant's motion to compel the government to produce copies of discovery, specifically the serial numbers of the "buy money" from his 1999 conviction. The court noted that there was no pending action or issue before the court. On September 9, 2011, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider this court's denial of his motion to compel, to which the government has responded in opposition.
As the court has instructed the defendant in orders addressing his previous motions to compel the "buy money," until he has a pending action or issue before this court, the court does not have the authority to order discovery for a conviction that became final in 1999.
If and when the defendant files a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which he indicates is his intention, then the court will consider a request for discovery at that time. However, the court expresses no opinion herein as to how it might rule on any future request.
The motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 302) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
