Sjodin v. United States

D. Utah

Sjodin v. United States

DecidedApril 25, 2025

Docket4:23-cv-00019

StatusUnknown

This text of Sjodin v. United States (Sjodin v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sjodin v. United States, (D. Utah 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH KIRK ARDELL SJODIN, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Movant, VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 4:23-cv-00019-DN Respondent. District Judge David Nuffer Kirk Ardell Sjodin (“Sjodin”) filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (“Motion”).1 In the Motion, Sjodin challenges his “ongoing detention” and seeks “immediate release of all records, wrongful conviction suit, suppression of charges filed,” and compensation of $69,017,000.00.2 As explained below, the Motion is DENIED because it is procedurally improper and is moot due to Sjodin’s pending direct appeal of his conviction in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A motion under § 2255 may be filed by “[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court . . . .”3 Where a defendant “has not yet been convicted or sentenced” a “§ 2255 motion is therefore inappropriate and is denied.”4 The Motion here was filed on March 13, 2023, prior to Sjodin’s bench trial, conviction, or sentencing. Accordingly, it was procedurally premature and

1 Docket no. 1, filed March 13, 2023. 2 Id. at 1, 12. 3 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). 4 Dean v. United States, No. 1:24-CV-197-TC, 2024 WL 5008825, at *1 (D. Utah Dec. 6, 2024). improper. Prior to the Motion’s filing, Sjodin previously sought similar relief under § 2255,5 which was denied by Judge Robert Shelby for reasons similar to the reasons explained herein.6 Judge Shelby’s analysis included Sjodin’s prior motion being filed prior to sentencing and therefore not properly brought under § 2255.7 The Motion is DENIED because it was filed

prematurely. “Absent extraordinary circumstances, the orderly administration of criminal justice precludes a district court from considering a § 2255 motion while review of the direct appeal is still pending.”8 After the Motion was filed, a bench trial was held,9 and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were entered finding Sjodin guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).10 Sjodin was sentenced August 23, 202311 and judgment was entered August 31, 2023.12 Currently still pending is Sjodin’s direct appeal of his criminal conviction.13 In his Motion, Sjodin raises issues of suppression of evidence, a Brady violation, conspiracy to convict, and access to courts and law library. Sjodin’s direct appeal has raised all of the issues in the Motion.14 There are no

5 Docket no. 1 in case no. 4:23-cv-00004-RJS, filed January 10, 2023. 6 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence and Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 5 in case no. 4:23-cv-00004-RJS, filed November 1, 2023. 7 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence and Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 5 in case no. 4:23-cv-00004-RJS, filed November 1, 2023. 8 United States v. Scott, 124 F.3d 1328, 1330 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 9 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert J. Shelby in case no. 4:22-cr-00105-RJS-1, docket no. 175, filed April 26, 2023. 10 Docket no. 178 in case no. 4:22-cr-00105-RJS-1, filed May 12, 2023. 11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert J. Shelby in case no. 4:22-cr-00105-RJS-1, docket no. 201, filed August 23, 2023. 12 Docket no. 202 in case no. 4:22-cr-00105-RJS-1, filed May 12, 2023. 13 Tenth Circuit appellate case 23-4069, filed May 17, 2023. 14 See generally Appellate Brief with Memorandum of Points and Authorities, docket no 53-1 in Tenth Circuit appellate case 23-4069, filed February 5, 2024. extraordinary circumstances that require § 2255 review prior to resolution of Sjodin’s direct appeal. The Motion is DENIED because Sjodin’s direct appeal prevents a § 2255 review. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion!’ is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. Signed April 25, 2025. BY THE CQURT

David Nuffer United States District Judge

'S Docket no. 1, filed March 13, 2023.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH KIRK ARDELL SJODIN, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Movant, VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 4:23-cv-00019-DN Respondent. District Judge David Nuffer Kirk Ardell Sjodin (“Sjodin”) filed a Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (“Motion”).1 In the Motion, Sjodin challenges his “ongoing detention” and seeks “immediate release of all records, wrongful conviction suit, suppression of charges filed,” and compensation of $69,017,000.00.2 As explained below, the Motion is DENIED because it is procedurally improper and is moot due to Sjodin’s pending direct appeal of his conviction in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A motion under § 2255 may be filed by “[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court . . . .”3 Where a defendant “has not yet been convicted or sentenced” a “§ 2255 motion is therefore inappropriate and is denied.”4 The Motion here was filed on March 13, 2023, prior to Sjodin’s bench trial, conviction, or sentencing. Accordingly, it was procedurally premature and

1 Docket no. 1, filed March 13, 2023. 2 Id. at 1, 12. 3 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). 4 Dean v. United States, No. 1:24-CV-197-TC, 2024 WL 5008825, at *1 (D. Utah Dec. 6, 2024). improper. Prior to the Motion’s filing, Sjodin previously sought similar relief under § 2255,5 which was denied by Judge Robert Shelby for reasons similar to the reasons explained herein.6 Judge Shelby’s analysis included Sjodin’s prior motion being filed prior to sentencing and therefore not properly brought under § 2255.7 The Motion is DENIED because it was filed

prematurely. “Absent extraordinary circumstances, the orderly administration of criminal justice precludes a district court from considering a § 2255 motion while review of the direct appeal is still pending.”8 After the Motion was filed, a bench trial was held,9 and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were entered finding Sjodin guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).10 Sjodin was sentenced August 23, 202311 and judgment was entered August 31, 2023.12 Currently still pending is Sjodin’s direct appeal of his criminal conviction.13 In his Motion, Sjodin raises issues of suppression of evidence, a Brady violation, conspiracy to convict, and access to courts and law library. Sjodin’s direct appeal has raised all of the issues in the Motion.14 There are no

5 Docket no. 1 in case no. 4:23-cv-00004-RJS, filed January 10, 2023. 6 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence and Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 5 in case no. 4:23-cv-00004-RJS, filed November 1, 2023. 7 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence and Motion for Summary Judgment, docket no. 5 in case no. 4:23-cv-00004-RJS, filed November 1, 2023. 8 United States v. Scott, 124 F.3d 1328, 1330 (10th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 9 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert J. Shelby in case no. 4:22-cr-00105-RJS-1, docket no. 175, filed April 26, 2023. 10 Docket no. 178 in case no. 4:22-cr-00105-RJS-1, filed May 12, 2023. 11 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert J. Shelby in case no. 4:22-cr-00105-RJS-1, docket no. 201, filed August 23, 2023. 12 Docket no. 202 in case no. 4:22-cr-00105-RJS-1, filed May 12, 2023. 13 Tenth Circuit appellate case 23-4069, filed May 17, 2023. 14 See generally Appellate Brief with Memorandum of Points and Authorities, docket no 53-1 in Tenth Circuit appellate case 23-4069, filed February 5, 2024. extraordinary circumstances that require § 2255 review prior to resolution of Sjodin’s direct appeal. The Motion is DENIED because Sjodin’s direct appeal prevents a § 2255 review. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion!’ is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. Signed April 25, 2025. BY THE CQURT

David Nuffer United States District Judge

'S Docket no. 1, filed March 13, 2023.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sjodin v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sjodin-v-united-states-utd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack