IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) 1:08cr55

) Electronic Filing

JEREMY NOYES )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

AND NOW, this 19

th day of July, 2016, upon due consideration of defendant Jeremy 

Noyes' motion to supplement defendant's pending § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United 

States and Welch v. United States, IT IS ORDERED that [240] the motion be, and the same 

hereby is, granted;

AND IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that upon due consideration of defendant's "Motion 

for Stay of Judgment Pending Rulings in Circuit Courts Regarding Issues Raised in Supplement 

to Motion Under § 2255", IT IS ORDERED that [239] the motion to stay be, and the same 

hereby is, granted in part. Defendant shall file his supplemental brief in support of his § 2255 

motion addressing the impact of Johnson on his sentence on or before October 18, 2016. The 

motion is denied in all other aspects;

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that [210] defendant's motion to show cause, [217] motion 

to recuse judges, [220] motion for show cause hearing and response, and [238] motion for court 

to order BOP to assign court pending status and access to a legal neo be, and the same hereby 

are, denied. A movant under § 2255 is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course 

and generalized statements that such an undertaking will unearth a basis for collateral relief fail 

to provide good cause for authorizing such measures. See, e.g., Velazquez-Rivera v. United 

States, 54 F. Supp.3d 168, 170 (D. Puerto Rico, 2014) ("A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual 

civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course [and] 

Case 1:08-cr-00055-DWA Document 241 Filed 07/19/16 Page 1 of 2
2

[g]eneralized statements regarding the possibility of the existence of discoverable material will 

not be sufficient to" meet the demanding standards of Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 

2255 motions) (quoting Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997)); accord Harris v. Nelson, 

394 U.S. 286, 297 (1969) (The broad-ranging preliminary inquiry authorized by the Rules of 

Civil Procedure "is neither necessary nor appropriate in the context of a habeas corpus 

proceeding."); Williams v. Beard, 637 F.3d 195, 209 (3d Cir. 2011) (discovery in a habeas 

proceeding must be grounded in factual allegations sufficient to present a viable claim that the 

petitioner or movant is entitled to relief); and 

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that [232] defendant's motion to request extension of time 

to file amendment to § 2255 be, and the same hereby is, granted to the extent defendant is 

permitted to file a supplemental brief raising the impact of Johnson/Welsh, if any, on his 

sentence, and denied to the extent it seeks to otherwise delay or permit briefing on any other 

issues not raised prior to September 7, 2014 (the 120 day period afforded defendant under [212] 

the Miller notice issued to defendant/movant on May 7, 2014). 

s/David Stewart Cercone

David Stewart Cercone

United States District Judge

cc: Jeremy Noyes

20585-068

FCI Tucson

P.O. Box 24550

Tucson, AZ 85734

(Via First Class Mail)

Christian A. Trabold, Esquire

Lee Karl, Esquire

Mary McKeen Houghton, Esquire

(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)

Case 1:08-cr-00055-DWA Document 241 Filed 07/19/16 Page 2 of 2