United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
November 17, 2014
United States of America,
Earl Glenn, Jr., Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
CAMERON McGOWAN CURRIE, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court pursuant to Defendant's pro se motion seeking evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). ECF No. 223. Defendant contends he was denied access to evidence which "if had been known by the jury would've rendered a different verdict." Mot. at 1.
Defendant raises a challenge to the viability of his conviction. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is, in reality, a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. "[A] motion directly attacking the prisoner's conviction or sentence will usually amount to" a § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003).
If this court construes this motion as one for relief under § 2255, Defendant should be given the opportunity to either withdraw this motion, or amend it to include all grounds he wishes to raise in a § 2255 motion, as several consequences result from the filing and consideration on the merits of a § 2255 motion. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003).
Because these limitations affect future filings by Defendant if this court proceeds with the presently-filed motion as one for relief under § 2255, the court notifies Defendant of its intent to construe the motion filed November 10, 2014, as a motion for relief under § 2255. Defendant shall either move to withdraw the motion if he so chooses, or amend it to include all grounds for relief he wishes to pursue by Friday, November 28, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.