Walker v. USA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
YOSHI R. WALKER,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
OPINION and ORDER
23-cr-26-jdp
25-cv-673-jdp
Petitioner Yoshi R. Walker pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to possess with
intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 21
U.S.C. § 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Dkt. 1. He was sentenced to a 72-month term of
incarceration, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Dkt. 266.
Walker, proceeding without counsel, now seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, primarily
on the ground that his defense counsel was ineffective. Walker asks the court to stay this case,
so that he may obtain discovery from his defense counsel. Dkt. 4; Dkt. 7. He also requests that
Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker be removed from this case. Dkt. 3.
Walker’s petition is over-long, running to 44 pages. Despite its length, the petition fails
to allege factual details to support his vague grounds for relief, repeatedly stating that the
petition is a “placeholder” with the factual basis to be supplied later. I will order Walker to
amend his petition to clarify his claims for relief. I will deny his other motions.
Case: 3:25-cv-00673-jdp Document #: 10 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 1 of 4

2
ANALYSIS
A. Screening the petition
I must review the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Proceedings (“Section 2255 Rules”). Rule 4 authorizes me to dismiss a petition to vacate
summarily if “it plainly appears from the [petition], any attached exhibits, and the record of
the prior proceedings that the [petitioner] is not entitled to relief.”
Petitions under § 2255 “must meet heightened pleading requirements.” Shanks v. United
States, No. 21-cv-1166, 2022 WL 16552876, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 31, 2022) (citing McFarland
v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994)). The petition must substantially follow the form prescribed
by this court. See Rule 2(c), Section 2255 Rules. The court’s form requires petitioners to state
specific facts supporting each claim for relief, and to avoid argument or citing law. The court
has inherent powers to manage its docket in a way to “achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases,” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016), which includes the power to
impose reasonable page limits on legal filings, see Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 768 F. App’x 7,
9 (2d Cir. 2019).
Walker’s 44-page petition is excessively long and argumentative, and it has many
immaterial and redundant allegations. Walker acknowledges that his six grounds for relief are
overlapping, stating that most of them “cross reference[] . . . and adopt the allegations” in the
others. Walker’s disorganized petition don’t meet § 2255’s heightened pleading standards. For
example, it’s not enough to say that defense counsel failed to file the pretrial motions that
Walker suggested, or that defense counsel failed to file any pretrial motions. Walker must
identify the specific pretrial motion that should have been filed, why it would have been
successful, and how Walker was prejudiced by the failure to file it.
Case: 3:25-cv-00673-jdp Document #: 10 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 2 of 4

3
The court will not parse the current petition in an attempt to discern some facts
supporting a potentially meritorious claim because that would unduly strain the court’s
resources and divert it from its role as a neutral decisionmaker. The court must construe
Walker’s allegations generously, but it cannot construct his claims for him.
I will require Walker to file an amended petition, using the court’s form, that clarifies
his 	grounds 	for 	relief 	and 	identifies 	the 	facts 	supporting 	them. 	Walker 	may 	include
supplemental pages with the form if he needs more space to allege facts supporting his claims,
but he may provide no more than ten supplemental pages. If Walker files a separate legal
memorandum, it likewise must not exceed ten pages. Any text or handwriting on the amended
petition or any supplemental page or legal memorandum must not be excessively small and
must contain enough spacing between lines to ensure legibility. For reference, the spacing and
text size in Walker’s supplemental pages meet this requirement.
B. Other pending motions
Walker moves the court to stay this case, primarily to obtain discovery from Jasti.
Walker explains that the purported discovery will bolster the petition’s claims and allow him
to bring additional claims.
I will deny Walker’s request to stay the case. Walker has not shown that he needs
discovery from defense counsel to state his grounds for relief. The request is premature. If the
amended petition passes screening, Walker may seek leave to conduct discovery under Rule 6
of the Section 2255 Rules. The idea that defense counsel has documents that would support
any viable claim for relief is pure speculation at this point. If Walker later obtains discovery
that reveals a basis for additional claims, he may seek leave to amend at that time.
Case: 3:25-cv-00673-jdp Document #: 10 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 3 of 4

4
I will deny Walker’s request that Magistrate Judge Crocker be removed from this case
as moot, because Judge Crocker has retired. I note that no part of this case has been referred
to a magistrate judge.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Yoshi R. Walker has until March 6, 2026, to file an amended petition in
accordance with this order.
2. 	Petitioner’s motions to stay, Dkt. 4 and Dkt. 7, are DENIED.
3. 	Petitioner’s motion for judicial reassignment, Dkt. 3, is DENIED as moot.
4. 	Petitioner is to be sent a copy of the court’s § 2255 form.
Entered February 4, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00673-jdp Document #: 10 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 4 of 4