Opinion
1:22-CR-72-MR-WCM
11-21-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DARRIS GIBSON MOODY Defendant.
ORDER
W. Carleton Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the Court on the following:
• “Pray for Habeas Corpus for Hearing and Release as per 28 USC 2255 per 28 USC 1652 and N.C. Article 2.15A Jurisdiction” (Doc. 28);
• “Administrative Notice; In the Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis & a Demand for Dismissal or State the Proper Jurisdiction” (Doc. 29);
• “Motion for Judicial Notice and Demand for Full Disclosure Under Brady/Giglio on All Attorney/Lawyer and Pursuant Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery, Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery, Sanctions” (Doc. 30);
• “Pray for Habeas Corpus for Hearing and Release as per 28 USC 2255 per 28 USC 1652 and N.C. Article 2.15A Jurisdiction” (Doc. 31);
• “Administrative Notice; In the Nature of Writ of Error Coram Nobis & a Demand for Dismissal or State the Proper Jurisdiction” (Doc. 32);
• “Motion for Judicial Notice and Demand for Full Disclosure Under Brady/Giglio on All Attorney/Lawyer and Pursuant Rule 26. Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery, Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery, Sanctions” (Doc. 33); and
Documents 31, 32, and 33 appear to be additional copies of Documents 28, 29, and 30.
• “Pray for Show Cause, Why a for Habeas Corpus Hearing Should Not Be Given” (Doc. 35).
These filings are collectively referred to herein as the “Motions.” The Government has responded. Doc. 37. No reply has been submitted by defense counsel in support of the Motions.
Generally, though the Motions refer to various federal and state statutes, rules and/or other authorities, it is not clear how the cited provisions apply to the facts and circumstances of this specific matter.
However, it is unnecessary for the Court to attempt to address the Motions substantively (and the undersigned makes no findings in that regard) as they are procedurally infirm. Specifically, each of the Motions has been filed by Defendant herself and not by her counsel. Further, to the extent the Motions seek the dismissal of the charges pending against Defendant, they are not supported by separate briefs. See LCrR 47.1.
The captions of the Motions refer to Defendant as "Darris Gibson ‘last name of Moody'” and to the United States as the “non injured fictitious plaintiff."
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the above-referenced Motions (Docs. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35) are DENIED.