Dorceant v. US

2014 DNH 251

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: December 4, 2014
• Docket: 13-cv-353-JD
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Luckenson Dorceant

v. Civil No. 13-cv-353-JD Opinion No. 2014 DNH 251 United States of America

O R D E R

Luckenson Dorceant, who is proceeding pro se, moves pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, to vacate his sentence, alleging ineffective

assistance of counsel.1 Before he filed his amended motion to

vacate sentence, Dorceant file three motions in which he seeks to

obtain discovery by various means. The government did not

respond to the motions.

Unlike ordinary civil cases, there is no right to discovery

in habeas corpus proceedings. Teti v. Bender, 507 F.3d 50, 60

(1st Cir. 2007). The court may authorize discovery based on a

showing of good cause. Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 326

(1996) (citing Habeas Corpus Rule 6(a)). Good cause to support

discovery requires more than speculation, and instead the

petitioner must show that “if the facts are fully developed, [the

petitioner may] be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to

relief.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 909 (1997); see also

Arthur v. Allen, 459 F.3d 1310, 1311 (11th Cir. 2006).

1 Counsel was appointed to represent Dorceant for purposes of this proceeding. Dorceant, however, asked the court to dismiss counsel and to dismiss the complaint filed by appointed counsel. Representation was terminated. Dorceant was convicted on one count of conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine and one

count of conspiracy to import more than 500 grams cocaine. He

was sentenced to a prison term of 360 months. Dorceant seeks

relief under § 2255 based on theories of ineffective assistance

of trial counsel: (1) failure to introduce exculpatory evidence;

(2) failure to advise Dorceant about plea negotiations; (3)

failure to properly present Dorceant’s request mid-trial for self

representation; (4) failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing

argument; (5) failure to contest the sentencing factor that death

resulted from the use of cocaine; and (6) failure to suppress

evidence seized in Massachusetts.2

A. Motion to Compel Statement

In his first motion, Dorceant asks the court to compel the

government to provide him with “the authentic testimony of

Dionaliz Rodriguez Brito.” Dorceant states that he “has reason

to believe” that “Agent Puglise” altered a statement made by

“Brito” and that the prosecutor knew of the alteration. He

2 Dorceant’s crime involved importing cocaine into this country by having women ingest plastic bags of cocaine and then travel from the Dominican Republic to the United States. One of the women employed in this manner, Mally Cruz Rodriguez died of an overdose when the cocaine escaped from the bags into her intestinal system.

2 asserts that the statement is necessary to show a Brady

violation.

Dorceant does not raise a Brady claim in his motion to

vacate his sentence. He makes no plausible link between the

statement he seeks and the claims he raises. Further, Dorceant’s

unsupported speculation about an alteration is far from the good

cause required to support a discovery request.

B. Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Dorceant asks the court to compel the government to provide

him with the search warrant issued for the controlled substances

found in the body of Mally Rodriguez Cruz, for the chain of

custody form, and for all police and investigation notes.

Dorceant asserts that the information he seeks is necessary to

show whether he was guilty or innocent and to support his claim

of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Although evidence surrounding the drugs found in the body of

Rodriguez Cruz may be related to Dorceant’s sixth claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel, he has not sufficiently

articulated his theory to show good cause. Further, a habeas

proceeding is not an opportunity to retry the criminal case in

which Dorceant was found guilty.

3 C. Motion for Funds to Hire a Private Investigator

Dorceant states he requires funds to hire a private

investigator because he is indigent and those services are

necessary “in order to substantiate his claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel.”3 Services, including investigative

services, may be provided for an indigent criminal defendant but

only on a showing that the requested services are necessary for

adequate representation. 18 U.S.C. § 3000A(e)(1). Even if

§ 3006A(e)(1) would apply in the context of a pro se habeas

petitioner, Dorceant has not shown that the services he requests

are necessary. See Covarrubias v. Gower, 2014 WL 342548, at *2

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2014) (“Assuming arguendo that a financially

eligible pro se habeas petitioner can have a private investigator

appointed for him, he still must meet the substantive criteria

for the authorization of funding.”).

3 Dorceant also states that he “is accused of committing an extremely serious crime.” Dorceant has been convicted of committing an extremely serious crime.

4 Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner’s motions to

compel (documents nos. 40 and 43) and motion for funds (document

no. 44) are denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge

December 4, 2014

cc: Luckenson Dorceant, pro se Seth R. Aframe, Esq.