Bright v. United States
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-02113
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bright v. United States, Judge Failla dismissed Bright’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 request without prejudice because resentencing had not occurred.
Frank Bright’s § 2255 request was dismissed without prejudice, and the related civil case was closed. His criminal case remained subject to limited resentencing concerning the special conditions of supervised release.
What happened
In Bright v. United States, Frank Bright had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery and received a 240-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release.
After an appeal led to limited resentencing on the special conditions of supervised release, Bright filed a self-represented motion to withdraw his guilty plea or, alternatively, to set aside his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. His resentencing had not yet occurred.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that the court could not consider the § 2255 request because Bright was not currently serving a sentence imposed by that court. She dismissed that request without prejudice, closed the related civil case, and did not state a ruling on the separate request to withdraw the guilty plea under Rule 11.
The detailed version
- Bright v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-02113
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
Frank Bright pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The court sentenced him principally to 240 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release in a judgment dated August 22, 2019.
Bright appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed his appeal concerning the imprisonment and supervised-release terms, partly affirmed his conviction and special assessment, and declined to summarily affirm the special conditions of supervised release. It sent the criminal case back for a limited resentencing concerning those special conditions. The opinion states that resentencing had not occurred because of COVID-19 restrictions and other circumstances. Bright was represented by counsel for resentencing.
Motion
On March 10, 2021, Bright filed a self-represented motion seeking to withdraw his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2). Alternatively, he sought to vacate his guilty plea, conviction, and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure allowing a prisoner to challenge a federal sentence in certain circumstances.
Court’s reasoning
The court addressed the § 2255 request. It held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal power to decide that request—because Bright was not currently under a sentence imposed by the court. The court relied on Second Circuit authority stating that a § 2255 motion cannot be brought while a person is awaiting resentencing and is therefore not under a sentence of the court.
Disposition
The court dismissed Bright’s request for relief under § 2255 without prejudice to his ability to renew it at the appropriate time. The Clerk was directed to file the order in both the civil and criminal cases, terminate all pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the civil case, No. 21 Civ. 2113. The opinion does not state a separate ruling on Bright’s request to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 11(d)(2).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.