WRIGHT v. HARTUNIAN

WRIGHT v. HARTUNIAN

Petitioner:	JERRELL WRIGHT
Respondent:	RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
Case Number:	9:2017cv00737
Filed:	July 7, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Prisoner Office
County:	Albany
Presiding Judge:	Andrew T. Baxter
Presiding Judge:	Frederick J. Scullin
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 29, 2017	Filing 11 ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Petitioner's # 10 request to withdraw his § 2241 motion voluntarily is GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that Petitioner's § 2241 motion, which the Clerk of the Court filed as a conditional § 2255 motion in the underlying criminal action, see United States v. Wright, 1:14-CR-281 (FJS), Dkt. No. 16, is DISMISSED because, as the Court noted in its July 21, 2017 Memorandum-Decision and Order, the Court could "not permanently con vert Petitioner's filing into a first § 2255 motion without notifying him of its intent to do so and giving him and opportunity to withdraw the petition, consent to its conversion to a § 2255 motion in its current form, or amend it so that it contains all of the § 2255 claims he believes he has." See Dkt. No. 9 at 5-6 (citing Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003)). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 8/29/2017. [Copy served upon Petitioner via regular mail.] (nmk)
July 6, 2017	Filing 2 OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/6/2017. (dmr) [Transferred from New Jersey on 7/7/2017.]

Date Filed

Document Text

August 29, 2017

Filing 11 ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Petitioner's # 10 request to withdraw his § 2241 motion voluntarily is GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that Petitioner's § 2241 motion, which the Clerk of the Court filed as a conditional § 2255 motion in the underlying criminal action, see United States v. Wright, 1:14-CR-281 (FJS), Dkt. No. 16, is DISMISSED because, as the Court noted in its July 21, 2017 Memorandum-Decision and Order, the Court could "not permanently con vert Petitioner's filing into a first § 2255 motion without notifying him of its intent to do so and giving him and opportunity to withdraw the petition, consent to its conversion to a § 2255 motion in its current form, or amend it so that it contains all of the § 2255 claims he believes he has." See Dkt. No. 9 at 5-6 (citing Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003)). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 8/29/2017. [Copy served upon Petitioner via regular mail.] (nmk)

July 6, 2017

Filing 2 OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/6/2017. (dmr) [Transferred from New Jersey on 7/7/2017.]

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: WRIGHT v. HARTUNIAN
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: JERRELL WRIGHT
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?