UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
Case No. 10-cr-87 (GK)
JASON TODD REYNOLDS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner is Jason Todd Reynolds, an inmate in a federal prison, who was convicted of
multiple felonies in 2011. Judgment as to Jason Todd Reynolds [Dkt. No. 73]. In 2014, Mr.
Reynolds challenged his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his attorney in his
criminal trial had provided him with unconstitutionally ineffective assistance [Dkt. No. 96]. Mr.
Reynolds’ Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was fully briefed, and the Court held an
evidentiary hearing on February 2 and 3, 2015 (“Evidentiary Hearing”). S_ee_ Memorandum Order
Denying Motion to Vacate at 6 [Dkt. No. 140]. Ultimately, on February 19, 2015, the Court denied
Mr. Reynolds’ Motion to Vacate his conviction. id
Mr. Reynolds now asks this Court to vacate the judgment of February 19, 2015, alleging
that various officials within the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) conspired to keep him from
participating in the Evidentiary Hearing, and thereby committed a fraud on this Court and deprived
him of his right to due process. Petition for Relief Under Federal Rule 60(b) and 60(d) (“Petition”)
[Dkt. No. 151]. In addition, Mr. Reynolds brings a number of ancillary claims alleging that: l) an
individual BOP official violated his constitutional rights; 2) various BOP officials have falsified
his prison records, resulting in poorer conditions of confinement and the prospect of more time in
prison; and 3) the Department of Justice has violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),
5 U.S.C. § 552. After consideration of the Petition, the Opposition [Dkt. No 155], and the Reply
[Dkt. No. 158], and the entire record herein, Mr. Reynold’s Petition will be denied.
l. BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2014, Mr. Reynolds filed a Motion to Vacate his conviction under 28
U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his attorney for his trial, Edward Sussman, had provided him with
ineffective assistance [Dkt. No. 96]. Mr. Reynolds Was represented by David Bernstein on the
§ 2255 Motion challenging his conviction. On January 5, 2015, the Court scheduled an
Evidentiary Hearing for February 2, 2015. [Dkt. No. 130].
On or around January 14, 2015, the BOP informed Mr. Reynolds that it would not allow
him to travel to the Evidentiary Hearing. BOP officials claimed that there had been a chickenpox
outbreak at the prison where Mr. Reynolds was held and that medical tests confirmed that he lacked
immunity to the chickenpox virus. Therefore, pursuant to BOP protocol, he was not permitted to
travel as he posed a transmission risk. On January 21, 2015, Mr. Bernstein filed an Emergency
Motion to Compel BOP to produce Mr. Reynolds at the Evidentiary Hearing. [Dkt. No. 131]. On
January 28, 2015, the Court held a status conference, by telephone, to discuss the Emergency
l\/Iotion. Subsequently, after informal negotiations between the Government and Mr. Bernstein,
the parties agreed that Mr. Reynolds would appear by video. Exh. E to Opp’n [Dkt. No. 155-5].
_2_
The Court then held the Evidentiary Hearing, as scheduled, on February 2 and 3, 2015, and
Mr. Reynolds participated by video conference Transcript of Motions Hearing Volume 1
(“February 2nd Transcript”) at 5:19-21 (2015) [Dkt. No. 136]. The transcript of the hearing makes
clear that Mr. Reynolds was able to testify fully on the morning of February 2, 2015, despite some
technical issues. § § at 59:19-22 (in which Mr. Bernstein concluded his questioning and Mr.
Reynolds was dismissed); w § at 9:25-10:1, 55:20-56:2 (discussing technical issues,
although confirming that Mr. Reynolds was able to see, hear, and participate). At the conclusion
of his testimony, the video feed Mr. Reynolds used to testify was disconnected, and he did not
participate in the remaining day-and-a-half of the Evidentiary Hearing. I_