USA v. Wanjiku

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. CR-23-227-R
)
ERICK GACHUHI WANJIKU, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Erick Gachuhi Wanjiku’s Motion to Compel [Doc.
No. 178], and Motion for Document #49 [Doc. No. 179]. In his Motion to Compel,
Defendant asks the Court to order his prior counsel to provide him with his case file from
the instant action so that he can file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
In his Motion for Document #49, Defendant asks the Court to order the Clerk’s Office to
allow him to retrieve a copy of the Jury Notes [Doc. No. 49] from his trial. The Court lacks
jurisdiction to rule on his requests.
“‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute.’” United States v. Moreno, No. 21-6096, 2022 WL
782660, at *1 (10th Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) (quoting Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256
(2013)). “As the movant, Defendant bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction.” Id.
(citing United States v. Garcia-Herrera, 894 F.3d 1219, 1220-21 (10th Cir. 2018)).
Here, Defendant makes no attempt to establish this Court’s jurisdiction to hear either
of his Motions. Like the defendants in Garcia-Herrera and Moreno, Defendant seeks
Case 5:23-cr-00227-R Document 183 Filed 08/01/25 Page 1 of 2

2
“documents through a motion to compel in a since-closed criminal case.” Moreno, 2022
WL 782660, at *1 (noting the similar circumstances present in Garcia-Herrera). But “[a]
motion to compel production is not a motion independently sufficient to reopen a district
court’s criminal jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Garcia-Herrera, 894 F.3d at 1220). And while
Defendant asserts that he intends to use the requested discovery for a § 2255 motion,
without the filing of such a motion or a civil suit, this Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on
the Motion to Compel. See id. The same is true for his Motion for Document #49. See
Garcia-Herrera, 894 F.3d at 1220. So Defendant’s Motions are DENIED for lack of
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2025.
Case 5:23-cr-00227-R Document 183 Filed 08/01/25 Page 2 of 2