USA v. COKER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
JULIAN DERWAYNE COKER, 	:
:
Movant, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 5:23-cr-63-MTT-CHW
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
:
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Movant Julian Coker’s motion for extension of time to reply
to the Government’s response to his § 2255 motion. (Doc. 482). He explains he is awaiting the
arrival of certain documents, including discovery materials and his sentencing transcript, before
submitting his next brief. (Id.) Upon reviewing the docket, no motion for discovery appears. See
Docket. It appears that Movant requested documents from the clerk’s office in several letters and
the Clerk responded and explained how to obtain those documents. For reasons explained below,
the pending motion (Doc. 482) in GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
A previous request for Movant’s prior counsel to produce his case file (Doc. 464) was
denied as moot because the request was filed in anticipation of Movant’s § 2255 motion, which
was filed before the request was considered. (Doc. 467). The Government has responded to the §
2255 motion as directed, arguing that Movant’s motion should be denied based on his inability to
show prejudice, his appeal waiver, and other legal arguments. (Doc. 479). Movant has now
requested an extension of time to reply to the Government’s response until he receives certain
documents from his case, including his sentencing transcript and “discovery packet.” (Doc. 482).
Case 5:23-cr-00063-MTT-CHW Document 483 Filed 06/17/26 Page 1 of 2

Now that Movant has a filed § 2255 motion, his request for case documents is ripe for
consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 753, which authorizes “free transcripts for indigent defendants ‘in
criminal proceedings,’ ‘in habeas corpus proceedings,’ or when pursuing a non-frivolous appeal.”
United States v. Bennett, 2024 WL 3673721, (M.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2024). The Court is not in
possession of a “discovery package” and no specific motion for discovery appears on the docket.
As for the remaining documents, Movant does not have an absolute right to a free transcript or
documents from the clerk’s file. He must show that his § 2255 motion is not frivolous and a
transcript is needed to decide the issues he has raised. See U.S. v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 325-
326 (1976) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 753(f)). Having preliminarily reviewed Movant’s §2255 motion,
the Court cannot say that a transcript or the other requested documents are needed to decide the
issues before the Court at this time. Moreover, Movant has not demonstrated that the requested
documents are required to decide the grounds he raised. He simply says he needs the documents
and cannot afford to pay.
The Clerk of Court has previously explained how Movant may obtain the documents he
seeks. (Doc. 476). Based on the foregoing, to the extent Movant seeks his sentencing transcript
and other case documents without payment, the motion (Doc. 482) is DENIED. However, his
request for an extension of time to file a reply brief is GRANTED. Movant’s reply brief is due
July 31, 2026.
SO ORDERED, this 17th day of June, 2026.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:23-cr-00063-MTT-CHW Document 483 Filed 06/17/26 Page 2 of 2