1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JOHNNIE LEROY STANLEY, 

 

Plaintiff, Case Number: 2:09-CV-12202 

 Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

v. 

MICHAEL LEIBSON, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE 

 This motion is one of many filed by Johnnie Leroy Stanley (“Stanley”) over the 

last 10 years regarding disclosure of federal grand jury 96-2-98 transcripts from the 

case of United States v. Adams, E.D. Mich. Stanley was not a party charged in that 

grand jury indictment, but Stanley believes that materials from the Adams federal grand 

jury were improperly used to empanel an Oakland County grand jury that did indict him. 

Since his own conviction, Stanley has petitioned for a Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 6(e) investigation against Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”). His 

petition was denied. 

Stanley now files a Motion for Leave asking the Court to: 1) reinstate his request 

for a Rule 6(e) investigation; and, 2) produce a disclosure order for federal grand jury 

96-2-98 transcripts. 

Stanley was convicted in 2002 in Oakland County Circuit Court of conspiracy to 

deliver and/or possess with the intent to deliver a controlled substance. Since 2004, 

this Court has repeatedly denied and struck from the docket most if not all of Stanley’s 

2:09-cv-12202-VAR-LJM Doc # 59 Filed 06/16/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 698
2

Rule 6(e) violation claims. Once again, Stanley burdens this Court with another petition 

regarding the exact same or similar requests that have all been previously dismissed. 

 Stanley’s requests are meritless; and he has yet to make a prima facie showing 

that a Rule 6(e) violation occurred. He consistently fails to show good cause for the 

production of these transcripts. Stanley has not provided the Court with any new 

information that would lead it to conclude otherwise. The record establishes that the 

Oakland County prosecutor was not in possession of any federal grand jury materials 

during Stanley’s preliminary hearing in state court on December 2, 1998. As the 

Government properly notes, the state prosecutor stated on the record that “[AUSA 

Leibson] indicated that it would be a violation of Federal Law for [the state prosecutor] to 

have copies of the [grand jury] transcript.” 

Additionally, the affidavit and “new evidence” of defense counsel William L. 

Cataldo, are not sufficient to prove fraud or justify reinstatement of a Rule 6(e) 

investigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) states: “the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following . . . newly 

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in 

time to move for a new trial.” Stanley’s first petition was in 2004, only two years after 

his conviction. The next 10 years appear to have been spent by Stanley filing frivolous 

petitions. Stanley had the opportunity and time to discover Cataldo’s statement, had he 

prepared more effectively. More importantly, the affidavit merely states that Cataldo 

was to contact Mr. Leibson about how to obtain the federal grand jury transcripts, but 

that he does not recollect whether or not he attempted to discuss the transcripts or the 

process to procure them in connection with Stanley’s criminal case. This statement is 

2:09-cv-12202-VAR-LJM Doc # 59 Filed 06/16/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 699
3

nothing more than a sworn reporting of events; it does not supply any merit to a claim 

under Rule 6(e). 

 Stanley not only has clogged this Court with an issue already litigated; he has 

also brought multiple similar petitions in state court and before other federal judges, with 

no success. The Court agrees with the Government and concludes that since Stanley 

has exhaustively litigated these claims in both state and federal court, his claim is 

barred by the doctrines of res judicata, claim preclusion, and collateral estoppel. See 

Winget v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank NA, 537 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2008); Abbott v. 

Michigan, 474 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2007); Bowles v. Russell, 432 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2005). 

The Government accurately characterizes Stanley as a serial litigant, on a 10-year 

fishing expedition to seek relief where none exists; he has an extensive history of 

frivolous filings with the Court and he lacks the potential to make an effective argument 

regarding this issue. 

Stanley’s Motion for Leave is DENIED with prejudice; this case is CLOSED; 

Stanley cannot file any more papers with the Court. 

IT IS ORDERED. 

 S/Victoria A. Roberts 

 Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: June 16, 2014 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this 

document was served on the attorneys of record 

and Johnnie Leroy Stanley by electronic means 

or U.S. Mail on June 16, 2014. 

s/Linda Vertriest 

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-12202-VAR-LJM Doc # 59 Filed 06/16/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 700