USA v. Weaver, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GEORGE LESLEY WEAVER, JR.,
Defendant.
4:21-CR-3139
ORDER
The defendant has filed several motions appurtenant to his pending
motions to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (filing 214; filing 217), asking
the Court to expedite its consideration of his motions, to order discovery, and
to compel the government to respond. Filing 221; filing 223; filing 225. The
Court will grant those motions in part and deny them in part.
First, the defendant asks the Court to order extremely broad disclosure
of essentially everything in the government's possession, and several
categories of evidence likely not in the government's possession, such as state
agency records. Filing 221 at 2-3. The Court may, "for good cause," authorize a
party to conduct discovery in support of a § 2255 motion, but the party
"requesting discovery must provide reasons for the request." Rules Governing
§ 2255 Proc. for the U.S. Dist. Cts. Rule 6. A party seeking postconviction relief,
unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a
matter of course. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Hence, discovery
is the exception rather than the rule. United States v. Vennes, 103 F. Supp. 3d
979, 999 (D. Minn. 2015).
The Court cannot find good cause at this point. Most of the defendant's
discovery requests seem to be focused on finding evidence to contradict his
4:21-cr-03139-JMG-JMD Doc # 226 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

- 2 -
sworn admissions at his change of plea hearing. See filing 122 at 18-29; see also
filing 118 at 2-3. The Court will deny the defendant's request for preliminary
discovery without prejudice to reassertion should the defendant's motion
proceed to an evidentiary hearing.
Nor will the Court "expedite" its initial review of the defendant's
motions. The defendant's circumstances are not unique and do not entitle him
to special treatment.
The Court will, however, grant the defendant's motions to a limited
extent: Upon a careful review of the defendant's § 2255 motions, the Court
finds that briefing from the government would assist the Court in completing
its initial review. The Court will, accordingly, direct the government to respond
to the defendant's § 2255 motions on or before February 6, 2026, subject to
extension should the government require one.
The defendant has also filed a motion to have seized property returned
to him. Filing 215. But obviously, the defendant is also collaterally attacking
the judgment against him pursuant to § 2255. So, the government is justified
in retaining the property at least during the pendency of postconviction
proceedings. See United States v. Mendez, 860 F.3d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir. 2017).
The defendant's motion to return property will be denied without prejudice to
reassertion when the defendant's collateral attack is finally resolved.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The defendant's "Emergency Motion to Compel Government
Response and Request for Discovery" (filing 221); "Motion to
Expedite and Request for Order Requiring Government
Response" (filing 223); and "Motion to Expedite Rule 4
4:21-cr-03139-JMG-JMD Doc # 226 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

- 3 -
Screening and to Order Government Response" (filing 225)
are granted in part.
2. The government shall respond to the defendant's § 2255
motion (filing 214) and amended § 2255 motion (filing 217)
on or before February 6, 2026.
3. The government's objection to return of property (filing 216)
is sustained.
4. The defendant's motion for return of property (filing 215) is
denied without prejudice.
Dated this 7th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
4:21-cr-03139-JMG-JMD Doc # 226 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>