Judge Joanna Seybert
Beecham applied for 28 USC §2254 habeas relief on Feb. 17, 2012. He repeatedly sought to stay his petition, or hold it in abeyance, so that he could return to state court to exhaust previously unexhausted claims. Various stay requests, and a motion to extend time in order to submit materials supporting those requests are pending. His present pro se motion sought his §2254 petition's stay in order to exhaust an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Beecham's motion also sought to compel production of the state court record, to compel counsel's appointment, to hold his §2254 petition in abeyance on "newly discovered evidence" grounds. District court denied Beecham's motion in its entirety, and warned him that he faced sanctions if he continues to file duplicative and frivolous motions for a stay, for discovery, and/or appointment of pro bono counsel. It was undisputed that all of Beecham's claims had already been properly exhausted. Further, his instant stay request gave no indication that he planned to return to state court. In denying Beecham discovery—which it considered a "fishing expedition"—the court found he was already in possession of the docket sheet reflecting the entirety of the trial court's Feb. 21, 2013, electronic order.
