Warren v. United States
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:24-cv-05011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Warren v. United States, Judge Seibel transferred Warren’s successive sentence challenge to the Second Circuit because prior authorization was required.
Gabriel Warren, who represented himself and filed the sentence challenge; the United States, as respondent; and the Second Circuit, to which the district court transferred the matter.
What happened
In Warren v. United States, Gabriel Warren, representing himself, challenged the legality of his federal sentence. The court treated his filing as a request under a federal law that allows prisoners to challenge their convictions or sentences, rather than as a motion under the criminal procedure rule he cited.
The court found that Warren had already filed an earlier sentence challenge that was decided on its merits. Because this was therefore a later challenge, Warren needed permission from the Second Circuit before filing it in the district court. The district court transferred the matter to that appeals court and closed the case.
The order did not decide whether Warren’s sentence was lawful. Judge Cathy Seibel also ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Warren v. United States · No. 7:24-cv-05011
- Cathy Seibel
- July 9, 2024
Background
Gabriel Warren, who is incarcerated, filed a motion challenging the legality of his sentence. He represented himself. His motion referred to Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and sought to vacate, set aside, or remand his sentence for resentencing.
The court explained that the appropriate legal vehicle for a federal prisoner’s challenge to a conviction or sentence is a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not Rule 52. The court also found that Warren had previously filed a § 2255 motion challenging the same sentence and that the earlier motion had been decided on the merits.
Court’s reasoning
Because the earlier § 2255 motion had been adjudicated on the merits, the court construed Warren’s current filing as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Before such a motion may be filed in the district court, the prisoner must obtain authorization from the appropriate federal appeals court. Warren had not indicated that he had received authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Under the law governing transfers when another court has authority to consider a matter, the district court determined that the filing should be transferred to the Second Circuit in the interest of justice. The court did not reach the merits of Warren’s challenge to his sentence.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the matter, as construed, to the Second Circuit and stated that the district-court matter was closed. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the motion did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.