USA v. Williams et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	3:19-CR-40-KAC-JEM-1
)
STACEY EDWARD WILLIAMS, JR.; 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
This criminal case is before the Court on the pro se (1) “Motion to Compel Defense Counsel
to Surrender the Case File” [Doc. 207] and (2) Motion for Extension of Time to file a Section 2255
Petition [Doc. 210] filed by Defendant Stacey Edward Williams Jr. 	For the reasons below, the
Court denies both motions.
On November 5, 2021, a jury found Defendant guilty of (1) aiding and abetting the
distribution of fentanyl and acetyl fentanyl resulting in death and (2) possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon, and (3) several other drug-related charges [See Doc. 131]. At that time, Defendant
was represented by counsel. On June 23, 2022, the Court sentenced Defendant to a term of life
imprisonment [Doc. 173 at 1-3]. Defendant appealed, [see Doc. 175], and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, [see Doc. 201]. On October 8, 2024, the Supreme Court
declined Defendant’s petition for certiorari [Doc. 206].
Thereafter, Defendant filed two pro se Motions related to a potential claim for habeas relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [See Docs. 207, 210]. First, Defendant filed a motion asking the Court to
“compel[] [former] Defense Counsel” at the trial level to “surrender the Case/Work File he created
in representing” Defendant [Doc. 207 at 1]. Defendant asserts that he “intends to file a motion to
vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255” for “INEFFECTIVE
Case 3:19-cr-00040-KAC-JEM Document 211 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
ASSISTANCE [of counsel]” and that he needs various documents to do so, “includ[ing] but not
limited to” all “Transcripts,” “Discovery,” and “Court filings” and “All other notes, letters, [and]
correspondence” “associated with” Defendant’s criminal case [Id. at 1-2]. Second, on December
22, 2025 Defendant filed a motion requesting “an extension” to file a habeas petition under
“Section 2255” [Doc. 210 at 1]. 	Asserting that the statute of limitations has run on his Section
2255 claim, Defendant requests additional time to obtain “a copy of my [his] indictment” and “trial
transcripts” before filing a Section 2255 petition [Id.].
Starting with Defendant’s request for an extension of time to file a Section 2255 motion
beyond the applicable statute of limitations, “federal courts may permit equitable tolling of the
[Section] 2255 statute of limitations” in some situations. See United States v. Asakevich, 810 F.3d
418, 420-21 (6th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). “But that grace period” may “appl[y] only” when
a defendant “actually filed” a Section 2255 petition. 	Id. at 421. 	If a defendant has not filed a
Section 2255 petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant an extension of time to file a petition.
Id. (explaining that district courts have “no license to issue advisory opinions” and cannot “permit
. . . [equitable] tolling based on a hypothetical state of facts” (internal quotation omitted).
At bottom, because Defendant has not “actually filed” 1 a Section 2255 petition, the Court lacks
jurisdiction to grant the extension he requests. See Asakevich, 810 F.3d at 421. So the Court denies
that Motion.
1 District courts have discretion to “construe” an “extension motion as a [Section] 2255 action.”
Id. (citing Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381-83 (2003)). But courts should only do so
where the extension motion “evidence[s] clear intent to serve as a [Section] 2255 petition.”
See Johnson v. United States, 457 F. App’x 462, 467 (6th Cir. 2012). No clear intent is present
here [See Doc. 210 at 1 (explaining to the contrary that Defendant is “waiting on . . . legal material”
before initiating a Section 2255 action)]. And construing Defendant’s Motion as a Section 2255
petition would be to his detriment because the “petition” would conclusively show that he is not
entitled to relief [See Doc. 210]. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
Case 3:19-cr-00040-KAC-JEM Document 211 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
Next, Defendant seeks the “complete Case/Work File” that former trial counsel “created”
while representing Defendant [Doc. 207 at 1, 4]. But Defendant cites no law that entitles him
unfettered access to attorney-work-product to prepare a Section 2255 or other post-judgment
motion. See United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975) (Noting that “[a]t its core, the work-
product doctrine” is meant to “shelter[] the mental processes of the attorney”). Even presuming
that as a former client, Defendant could obtain the attorney work product he seeks from counsel,
see e.g., In re Black Diamond Min. Co., LLC, 507 B.R. 209. 216 (E.D. Ky. 2014) (bankruptcy
case) (opining that attorneys may not “invoke the work-product doctrine against their own
clients”), no law requires the Court to afford Defendant discovery at this juncture, see United States
v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455, 472 (6th Cir. 2024) (“The Constitution affords a criminal defendant
no general right to discovery” (citing Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977)); see also
Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States District Courts Rule 4(b)
(authorizing “a party to conduct discovery” upon a showing of “good cause” but only where a
Section 2255 action has first been initiated). 	And Plaintiff offers no facts to explain how the
requested work-product would aid in preparing his claim. 	Without making some sufficient
showing, Defendant would not be entitled to those documents. See Sanders, 106 F.4th at 472.
As for the “Court filings” and other publicly-available records Defendant requests, this
Court has a standard practice for permitting litigants to request copies of Court filings and publicly
available records. A litigant who wishes to receive copies must make an appropriate request. It
appears Plaintiff has not done so [See Doc. 209-1 (indicating that the Clerk’s Office mailed a Copy
Request Notice to Defendant notifying him that he failed to pay the required fee as of September
12, 2025)]. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1914. 	The law does provide a potential avenue for Defendant to
Case 3:19-cr-00040-KAC-JEM Document 211 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

4
obtain transcripts paid for by the United States. See U.S.C. § 753(f). But Defendant has not met
those requirements here. See id.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motions [Docs. 207, 210]. 	If Defendant
wishes to file a Section 2255 Petition, he must do so promptly and consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
2255.
SO ORDERED.
KATHERINE A 	YTZER
United States District Judge
KA	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K	K 	TH	T 	ERINE A. C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	C	CRY	RY	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	RY	RY	R	RY	R	R	R	RY	RY	R	RY	RY	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	RY	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	RY	R	R	R	R	R	R	RY	R	R	R	RY	RY	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	RY	RY	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	RY	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	RY	R	R	R	RY	Y	R	R	RY	R	R	R	RY	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	RY	Y	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	RY	Y	YTZ	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	TZ	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T	T ER
United States Distriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiict	ccct	ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJud	uud	ud	ud	uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ge
Case 3:19-cr-00040-KAC-JEM Document 211 Filed 01/15/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>