USA v. Blakemore

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 4:20-cr-00575-MTS
)
JAMES BLAKEMORE, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are several pro se motions filed by defendant James Blakemore. The motions
relate to relief that must be sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and include requests for documents and
transcripts. Because there is no basis for the Court to order that transcripts or other materials be provided
to Defendant as part of a closed criminal case, the pending motions will be denied without prejudice. See
United States v. Wallace, No. 4:17-cr-00526-SEP-3, 2024 WL 4644873 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 31, 2024)
(defendant may file a motion for transcripts and/or discovery in a § 2255 action if he so choses and must
follow the rules that relate to such a request).
On November 29, 2023, a jury found Defendant guilty of Carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1),
Brandishing a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A) and 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii), and Felon in Possession of a Firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(I) and 18
U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). See Doc. [198]. Thereafter, this Court sentenced Defendant as a career offender to
324 months of incarceration. Doc. [221]. On March 29, 2024, Defendant’s counsel filed a notice of
appeal. Doc. [224]. Defendant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence and alleging Defendant’s speedy trial
rights had been violated. On June 12, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Case: 4:20-cr-00575-MTS Doc. #: 255 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
issued an order granting Defendant permission to submit supplemental briefing by July 3, 2024,
regarding any additional issues he wanted considered, and held in abeyance appointed counsel’s motion
to withdraw pending review of Appellant’s briefs pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988). See
[236]. Subsequently, Defendant filed several pro se motions in this Court: requesting documents and
transcripts, Docs. [237], [242]; requesting an order requiring his attorney to give him his court file to use
in a § 2255 motion, Doc. [239]; and requesting appointment of new counsel to assist him with filing his
direct appeal. Doc. [243]. On November 27, 2024, in the midst of Defendant filing these pro se motions,
the Eighth Circuit denied appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, Defendant’s motion for appointment
of new counsel, and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on whether Defendant’s prior
Missouri conviction for second-degree domestic assault qualifies as a predicate crime of violence
pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Doc. [240]. On February 28, 2025, in a per curiam
opinion, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment finding that Defendant’s conviction of
second-degree assault is a predicate offense under the career offender Guidelines. See Doc. [246] at 3.
The Eighth Circuit additionally concluded that there were no violations of Defendant’s right to a speedy
trial, and that the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable, as the District Court varied
downward in sentencing. See Doc. [246] at 3. The Eighth Circuit issued its mandate in the matter on
March 21, 2025. Doc. [248].
Thereafter, on August 6, 2025, Defendant filed a pro se motion requesting “his court
documents.” Doc. [251]. On August 18, 2025, Defendant filed a pro se document titled “Great Writ
2255” requesting discovery, transcripts, and other relief. See Doc. [252]. The motion was re-docketed as
a separate civil action. Blakemore v. United States, Case No. 4:25-cv-01247. In that case, this Court
entered an order on September 12, 2025, requiring Blakemore to file an amended motion on the Court-
approved § 2255 form by October 27, 2025, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal
Case: 4:20-cr-00575-MTS Doc. #: 255 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
without prejudice. See Blakemore, Case No. 4:25-cv-01247, Doc. [3]. Because Defendant did not do so
this Court dismissed the matter without prejudice for failure to submit the required form. See Blakemore,
Case No. 4:25-cv-01247, Doc. [4]. That matter is currently pending appeal. See Blakemore, Case No.
25-3473.
Based on the foregoing, and the fact that Defendant’s motion to vacate was administratively
assigned its own civil matter, see Blakemore, Case No. 4:25-cv-01247, Doc. [3], there is no basis for this
Court to grant any of Defendant’s pending motions in a closed criminal case.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s pro se motions in this matter, Docs. [237], [239],
[242], [243], and [251], are therefore DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 23rd day of January, 2026
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:20-cr-00575-MTS Doc. #: 255 Filed: 01/23/26 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>