DOJ-OGR-00022105.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 36 Filed 06/09/20 Page9of9 assertion that the Government, or any other agency that has operated as an arm of the prosecution, is in possession or control of evidence that relates to the prevalence of falsifying count slips in federal correctional facilities, or BOP leadership’s tolerance of such practices. Moreover, to the extent that Thomas is seeking discovery in support of a selective prosecution defense, he has not met the “rigorous” standard that applies for obtaining discovery in aid of such a claim. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996). “[A] defendant who seeks discovery on a claim of selective prosecution must show some evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent.” United States v. Bass, 536 U.S. 862, 863 (2002). Though Thomas claims that BOP supervisors may have acquiesced in his submission of false count slips in this case, and that other BOP employees have submitted false documents in other circumstances, he has not presented any evidence that those officers differed from him in any protected characteristic—for example, that they were of a different race, sex, or ethnicity. See Motion at 10. Nor has Thomas put forward any evidence of a discriminatory motive for his prosecution. Accordingly, Thomas’ motion to compel the Government to disclose evidence that the submission of false count slips was widespread and tolerated at the BOP, and for discovery related to selective prosecution, is DENIED. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Thomas’ motion to compel is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 33. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 9, 2020 O}- New York, New York eH? SRG AE Pk ANALISA TORRES 9 United States District Judge DOJ-OGR-00022105