USA v. Brown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 4:01-cr-40019
BRIAN L. BROWN 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Brian L. Brown’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for
Accounting. ECF No. 304. The government has responded. ECF No. 305. The matter is ripe for the
Court’s consideration.
Defendant’s case has been before this Court since 2001, and over the past approximately
twenty-two years, Defendant has filed dozens of motions for the Court’s consideration. Recently, the
Court reminded Defendant that he must seek leave from the Court before filing any additional motions.
See ECF No. 303, at 4 (“Defendant acknowledges that he is required to first obtain leave and states
that he ‘moves under Objection’ and ‘seeks LEAVE.’ However, Defendant must seek leave prior to
filing any motions. The Court’s June 8, 2011 order stands, and in the future, Defendant must obtain
leave of Court before filing a new pleading.” (citations omitted)).
On March 9, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion. ECF No. 304. Defendant acknowledges
that he must obtain leave from the Court before filing any motions, stating, for example, “Brown seeks
permission to file a non-habeas issue . . . under continued ‘objection’” and “Brown at this time only
seeks, permission (LEAVE) [sic].” ECF No. 304, at 1, 12. However, in the instant motion, Defendant
does much more than simply request leave to file a motion. The motion is fifteen (15) pages in length,
and Defendant presents substantive arguments for the Court’s consideration. For example, Defendant
argues that there is false information in his “file” that incorrectly labels him as a sex offender and that
Case 4:01-cr-40019-SOH Document 309 Filed 03/23/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
he “has a ‘Protected Liberty Interest,’ in his Trust Funds Account.” ECF No. 304, at 5, 9. Ultimately,
the Court construes Defendant’s motion as a request for leave to file a motion for an accounting, an
accounting that he ostensibly hopes to use in future filings. ECF No. 304, at 4.
The government has responded. 	ECF No. 305. 	It states that after reviewing Defendant’s
motion, it obtained a Case Inquiry Report from the Clerk of Court’s office. This report shows that
Defendant has paid $1,787.79 of his $25,000, court-ordered fine, meaning that Defendant owes an
outstanding balance of $23,212.21. 	ECF No. 305. 	The government states that it “provides [this]
information and the Case Inquiry Report in response to Brown’s Motion.” ECF No. 305, at 2. Because
the government responded to Defendant’s motion with the requested accounting, it would be
superfluous for the Court to grant Defendant leave to file a second motion, in which he will again
request the accounting that the government has already provided. 	Thus, the Court finds that
Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 304) should be DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of March, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:01-cr-40019-SOH Document 309 Filed 03/23/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>