Opinion
2:17-cr-00142-JAD-VCF
01-04-2023
United States of America, Plaintiff v. Brian Keith Wright, Defendant
ORDER DENYING MOTION [ECF NO. 233]
Jennifer A. Dorsey, U.S. District Judge.
Brian Wright was found guilty of assault on a federal officer in 2019, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed his conviction. Wright sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in February 2022. Because his motion contained no legal argument for modification or vacatur of his sentence and the record conclusively established that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks, I denied his motion without directing a response from the government. Six months later, Wright filed a “motion requesting this court to grant 2255 due to the government's consent” in the assault case, arguing that “the government conceded to the facts within [his] 2255 due to its 8 months of complete silence.” I denied that motion too, explaining that I did not direct the government to respond because Wright's habeas petition was plainly meritless.
ECF No. 172.
ECF No. 221.
ECF No. 223.
ECF No. 228.
ECF No. 230.
ECF No. 232. Wright has appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 234. On December 14, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order stating that “all subsequent filings [in the appeal] will be stayed pending the district court's determination on the certificate of appealability.” ECF No. 235; see also United States v. Wright, Ninth Circuit Court of AppealsCase No. 22-16912. I find that Wright does not meet the lenient standard to grant a certificate of appealability for his habeas motion or his “motion requesting this court to grant 2255 due to the government's consent,” so I deny him one.
On October 21, 2022, Wright filed a “motion requesting district court to adhere to F.R.A.P and notice of denial of access to the court.” In it, he claims that he filed the same § 2255 motion in three of his federal criminal cases but that it did not hit the docket in two of those three cases. He blames the government, the Clerk of Court, and the prison in which he is incarcerated for his predicament.
ECF No. 233.
Id. at 2.
Id. at 2-3.
But Wright's habeas motion was filed only in this case because he included only this case number in the motion's heading:
ECF No. 223.
(Image Omitted)
If Wright wishes to challenge his various convictions, he must file a separate habeas petition in each case. As Wright has been previously warned, “any motions [that] he files need to have the correct case number in the caption so they can be properly filed.” It is Wright's responsibility-not the court's or the government's-to properly label his motions and ensure that they end up in the correct case. More importantly, Wright's habeas petition was filed in this case and has been denied. Because Wright's motion fails to seek any relief in this case that this court can grant, I deny it.
See ECF No. 141 (minutes of proceedings).
Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Brian Wright's motion “requesting district court to adhere to FRAP” [ECF No. 233] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability for this court's previous orders denying Wright's § 2255 motion [ECF No. 223] and his motion “requesting this court to grant 2255 due to government's consent” [ECF No. 232] is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to SEND a copy of this order to the Clerk of Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.