Scheels v. United States, 6:17-cv-01850

Petitioner Douglas Scheels, a federal inmate, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate and sought in forma pauperis status and copies of his complete criminal docket.
Court granted Scheels leave to proceed in forma pauperis after review of his inmate trust account, which showed he lacked $25 at filing.
Scheels moved for copies of all documents from his criminal case; he did not identify specific items or explain their necessity for resolving his § 2255 claims.
The court applied precedent and local rules limiting free provision of records/transcripts to indigent habeas petitioners only when a particularized need is shown and the court has authorized such expense.
The court denied the request for the complete docket as Scheels failed to show why specific records (e.g., plea or sentencing transcript) were necessary.
The court denied the original § 2255 motion as moot, directed the Government to file a response to Scheels’ Amended § 2255 within 90 days, and set detailed requirements for that response (procedural history, appeal-waiver, transcripts/summaries, appellate filings, timeliness, and recusals). It also ordered mailing and address-notice requirements for Scheels.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to in forma pauperis status and fee assessment	Scheels sought IFP status to proceed without prepaying filing fees	Government relied on local rules requiring payment if balance ≥ $25 and limits of IFP relief	Court granted IFP because Scheels lacked $25 at filing; local rule obligations noted
Request for free copies of complete criminal docket	Scheels asked for all documents from his criminal case without specifying need	Gov't/bench relied on Walker and local rules: copies/transcripts at gov't expense require particularized need and court authorization	Denied — petitioner failed to show a particularized need for documents/transcripts
Treatment of original § 2255 vs amended motion	Scheels filed initial § 2255 then an amended motion	N/A (procedural)	Original motion denied as moot; amended motion accepted for review; Government ordered to respond within 90 days with specific items
Government’s obligations in responding to amended § 2255	Scheels seeks relief on merits without specifics here	Court required Government to detail prior remedies, appeal waivers, provide transcripts/summaries, appellate materials, timeliness analysis, and recusal info	Court ordered these requirements and directed ongoing duties (service and address notices)

Walker v. United States, 424 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1970) (indigent habeas petitioners are entitled to copies without cost only when IFP leave is granted and petition is pending; no entitlement for general error hunting)
Mills v. United States, 36 F.3d 1052 (11th Cir. 1994) (procedural-default principles regarding claims not raised on direct appeal)
Cross v. United States, 893 F.2d 1287 (11th Cir. 1990) (procedural-default guidance on appellate litigation and collateral review)
United States v. Rowan, 663 F.2d 1034 (11th Cir. 1981) (relitigation bar for claims previously raised and disposed of on direct appeal)