USA v. Wright

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLIFFORD WRIGHT III,
Defendant.
8:22CR253
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Clifford Wright III’s (“Wright”) Motion
to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, brought pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Filing No. 585).1 	The Court has reviewed the motion and finds it
must be dismissed as premature.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2025, a jury found Wright guilty of all three counts of a Third
Superseding Indictment. Count I charged him with possessing with intent to distribute 40
grams or more of fentanyl, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1); Count II charged
him with possessing a firearm in furtherance of that drug-trafficking crime, a violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and Count III charged him with being a felon in possession of a
firearm, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). Wright timely filed a Notice
of Appeal (Filing No. 578), and that appeal is currently pending before the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
II. 	DISCUSSION
When a defendant files a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 while his direct appeal is
pending, a district court may properly dismiss the § 2255 motion as having been
1 In addition to the Motion to Vacate, Wright has filed a number of “supplements” to
that motion (Filing Nos. 591, 596 and 597).
8:22-cr-00253-RFR-RCC Doc # 616 Filed: 10/30/25 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
prematurely filed. 	See, e.g., United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1042 (8th Cir. 1992)
(affirming dismissal of petitioner’s § 2255 motion as prematurely filed because it was filed
while petitioner’s direct appeal was pending); Masters v. Eide, 353 F.2d 517, 518 (8th Cir.
1965) (per curiam) (dismissing a § 2255 habeas petition filed while a direct appeal was
pending and stating “[o]rdinarily resort cannot be had to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 or habeas
corpus 	while 	an 	appeal 	from 	conviction 	is 	pending.”); 	United 	States 	v. 	Jordan,
No. 4:06CR3039, 2007 WL 2021780, at *1 (D. Neb. May 25, 2007) (concluding the same);
Curry v. United States, 2025 WL 1067933, at *2 (D. Ed. Mo. Apr. 9, 2025) (same); United
States v. Harvey, No. 8:14CR318, 2016 WL 6537624, at *2 (D. Neb. Nov. 3, 2016)
(explaining that due to petitioner’s direct appeal, there was no final judgment from which
to start the running of the one-year statute of limitation under the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)).
Some courts have stated that an exception to this rule exists in cases which involve
“extraordinary circumstances.” See, e.g., United States v. Barger, 178 F.3d 844, 848 (7th
Cir. 1999) (“[A] district court should not consider a § 2255 motion while a direct appeal is
pending, absent extraordinary circumstances”). 	The Court finds that no extraordinary
circumstances exist here.
Wright’s motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Filing No. 585) is dismissed
without prejudice. Wright may file a new § 2255 motion in accordance with AEDPA after
his judgment of conviction becomes final.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of October 2025.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
8:22-cr-00253-RFR-RCC Doc # 616 Filed: 10/30/25 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>