Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-08-60741/USCOURTS-ca5-08-60741-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Edward Frye
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60741

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES EDWARD FRYE, also known as Sealed Defendant 2,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:01-CR-8-2

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

On February 3, 2005, a jury convicted federal prisoner James Edward

Frye, of one count each of conspiracy, carjacking resulting in death, use of a

firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and interstate

transportation of a stolen vehicle. This court affirmed Frye’s conviction. United

States v. Frye, 489 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2007).

Following this court’s affirmance of his conviction, Frye discharged the

counsel representing him during his jury trial and filed the following motions

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 12, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 08-60741 Document: 00511170175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2010
No. 08-60741

pro se: a motion for a new trial and a motion requesting the district court to

direct his discharged counsel to return to him his case files from his criminal

proceeding. Frye stated that he sought his case files in order to prepare a

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence.

The district court denied Frye’s motion for a new trial and his motion to

direct his discharged counsel to return his case files. Frye then filed two

separate motions asking the district court to reconsider its previous denials of

his motions. In his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for the return

of his case files, Frye restated that the purpose of the motion was to prepare his

§ 2255 petition. In January 2009, the district court denied both of Frye’s

motions for reconsideration. Frye appealed the district court’s denial of both

motions.

In January 2009, Frye also filed a motion under § 2255 to vacate his

sentence and moved to hold this motion in abeyance pending resolution of his

appeal before this court challenging the denial of his motion to direct his

discharged counsel to return his case files. The district court stayed Frye’s §

2255 motion and directed the discharged counsel to preserve Frye’s case files.

Following the above district court actions, this court affirmed the district

court’s denial of Frye’s motion for a new trial. See United States v. Frye, 2010

U.S. App. LEXIS 8710 (5th Cir. 2010). This court today considers Frye’s appeal

of the district court’s denial of his motion to direct discharged counsel to return

his case files.

Before we can reach the merits of Frye’s appeal, we must first consider

whether we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. “Federal courts are courts of

limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution

and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). This

court may only exercise jurisdiction over final orders and certain interlocutory

2

 Case: 08-60741 Document: 00511170175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2010
No. 08-60741

orders. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 (final orders), 1292 (interlocutory decisions);

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1945 (2009).

Frye’s motion had no relationship to his motion for new trial. Instead, the

motion sought discovery to assist him in his § 2255 proceeding, which was not

before the district court at the time the motion was filed. Thus, the order for

discovery at issue before this court is not a final order. The question, therefore,

narrows to whether it is an appealable interlocutory order. Frye’s motion does

not fall into the limited category of interlocutory orders over which this court has

jurisdiction. Frye’s motion for return of his files is a motion to compel discovery

that could be appropriately filed in his § 2255 proceeding, and this court has

repeatedly held that discovery orders to a pending action are not subject to

interlocutory appeal. See Texaco, Inc. v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., 995

F.2d 43, 43–44 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted); Honig v. E. I. De Pont De

Nemours & Co., 404 F.2d 410, 410 (5th Cir. 1968). Therefore, this court lacks

jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See United States v. Davis, 103 F.3d 121 (4th

Cir. 1996) (unpublished).

1

For the above reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Frye’s appeal

from the district court’s denial of his motion to direct his discharged counsel to

return his case file.

DISMISSED.

This ruling will not preclude Frye from filing an appropriate discovery motion in his 1

§ 2255 action. Frye is also not without other potential remedies. He may file a complaint

against his discharged attorneys with the Mississippi State Bar, a process that he asserts in

his Reply Brief he has already begun undertaking. He may also file suit against his

discharged attorneys in state court. See, e.g., Edmonds v. Williamson, 13 So. 3d 1283, 1292–93

(Miss. 2009).

3

 Case: 08-60741 Document: 00511170175 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2010