USA v. Snodgrass

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN SNODGRASS,
Defendant.
Case No. 09-cr-30039-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant Steven Snodgrass’s Motion to Compel (Doc.
157). His motion asks the Court to compel the State of Illinois to “prove and produce any and all
physical evidence that proves his state convictions ‘claimed in the PSR.’” He believes this
evidence will mount a subsequent challenge to his conviction and sentence. Essentially, he wants
the Court to authorize him to conduct discovery to be used in a subsequent § 2255 motion to
vacate his sentence. However, federal courts have held that “[a] prisoner is not entitled to file a
motion for discovery – of transcripts, indictments, search warrants, or other records – before
filing a § 2255 motion to vacate.” See United States v. Cuya, 964 F.3d 969, 972 (11th Cir. 2020);
Brown v. United States, 438 F.2d 1385, 1385 (5th Cir. 1971). Because Snodgrass seeks to
compel documents that will be used in a future § 2255 motion, the Court cannot allow him to
conduct discovery.
In addition, to the extent that Snodgrass seeks to compel documents for use in his four
pending § 2255 motions (Docs. 152, 154, 158, 159), the Court declines to permit such discovery.
“A § 2255 petitioner is not permitted discovery as a matter of course as in ordinary civil
litigation.” United States v. Bontkowski, 262 F. Supp. 2d 915, 920 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (citing Bracy
v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997)). However, the Court “may, for good cause, authorize a
Case 3:09-cr-30039-JPG Document 161 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
party to conduct discovery.” R. 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the
United States District Courts. Good cause exists “where specific allegations before the court
show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to
demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908–09 (citing Harris v. Nelson,
394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)). No good cause exists in this case. The pending motions are not
Snodgrass’s first § 2255 motions. See e.g., Snodgrass v. United States, No. 3:12-cv-00050-JPG
(S.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2013); Snodgrass v. United States, No. No. 3:12-cv-00050-JPG (S.D. Ill. May
15, 2015). For the Court to consider successive petitions, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
must certify the successive petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Curry v. United States, 507
F.3d 603, 604 (7th Cir. 2007); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). It has
not done so. As such, the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the pending § 2255
motions, and Snodgrass cannot demonstrate that he is entitled to relief. Therefore, the Court
DENIES Defendant Steven Snodgrass’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 157).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	November 20, 2025
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:09-cr-30039-JPG Document 161 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#<pageID>