Bradley, Jr. v. United States of America

Filing 5

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to reassign this 28 U.S.C. 2255 proceeding back to the undersigned for preliminary review. This case is hereby stayed until further order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 9/10/2015. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
MARTIN J. BRADLEY, Jr.,
Movant,
Case No. CV414-198
CR40 5-059

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER

In light of intervening circumstances, the Court VACATES its
September 15, 2014 Order (CR405-059, doe. 1535) and DIRECTS the
Clerk to reassign this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding back to the
undersigned for preliminary review. It is appropriate, however, to stay
this case until further order of the Court.
Some background: The government obtained convictions against
Martin J. Bradley, III, and his father, Martin Bradley, Jr., primarily on
RICO charges.' Following an unsuccessful appeal, United States v.

In September 2005, a 286-count superseding indictment was returned against the
Bradleys and others, accusing them of operating a complex criminal RICO enterprise
stemming from numerous fraud schemes involving the purchase and sale of
prescription medications. CR405-059, doc. 228. After a six-week trial in which the
government called 89 witnesses, a jury found the Bradleys, a corporation, and a third
individual guilty. Doc. 553.
1

Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2011), Bradley, III sought 28 U.S.C. §
2255 relief before this court, and the district judge's ruling denying that
motion is now on appeal. Bradley v. United States, 2013 WL 6246775
(S.D. Ga. Dec. 3, 2013), reconsideration denied, 2014 WL 1259606 (S.D.
Ga. Mar. 25, 2014), certificate of appealability granted in part, 7 F. Supp.
3d 1272 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 2014), appeal pending, No. 14-10463-FF (11th
Cir. 2015).
Bradley, Jr. has since filed his own § 2255 motion, which is now
before this court at its opening stage. Does. 1531 & 1532 (double entry).
Such motions are generally referred to a magistrate judge for
preliminary review. But because of the unique circumstances of this case
and the arguments asserted on collateral review by Bradley, III, the
judge who conducted the criminal trial elected to address Bradley, III's §
2255 motion directly, without referring the matter to a magistrate judge.
It made sense for him to do the same here because Bradley Jr. represents
that his motion "raises the same issues as those raised by Bradley, III...
and [he] expressly adopts . . . the enumeration of the issues and the
briefs and supporting affidavits filed in support of those claims . . .
Doe. 1531 at 3. So in this (Bradley Jr.) case, the undersigned directed

the Clerk to correct the docket to reflect that it remained before the
district judge without reference. Doe. 1535. The trial judge, however,
passed away before he could reach the motion, and the justification for
"un-referring" Bradley Jr.'s § 2255 motion passed with him. The Clerk
is therefore DIRECTED to correct the docket to show that this matter is
referred to the undersigned.
Meanwhile, the opening and response briefs have been filed in
Bradley III's appeal. Since many if not most of the issues raised here will
be resolved by the Bradley III ruling, it makes sense to await the
appellate's court's decision. Accordingly, this case is hereby STAYED.
If Bradley, III prevails on appeal, this Court can then grant Bradley, Jr.
immediate relief consistent with Eleventh Circuit's decision.
SO ORDERED this / day of September, 2015.

UNITED S ES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA