Lesane v. United States

Background

Steven Lesane, who was incarcerated at FCI Elkton in Ohio, filed an undated application that was postmarked August 19, 2024, and docketed on September 13, 2024. He challenged the judgment entered on August 17, 2021, after he pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(2). His direct appeal resulted in the affirmance of the denial of his request to withdraw his guilty plea and dismissal of his appeal from the sentence. The Supreme Court later denied his request for review.

Lesane’s application referred, among other things, to ineffective assistance of counsel. It also stated that DNA evidence could have prevented harm from a victim-impact statement and proved his innocence, and referred to allegedly false testimony by a victim.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a federal prisoner generally uses a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to challenge a federal conviction or sentence on specified constitutional or legal grounds. Although Lesane’s filing was not labeled as a § 2255 motion, the court concluded that it could be construed as one because he sought to vacate his sentence and included some grounds for relief.

The court found the application deficient under Rule 2 of the rules governing § 2255 proceedings because it did not state the facts supporting the grounds for relief. The court also explained that a prisoner must have an opportunity to withdraw a filing before it is recharacterized as a § 2255 motion because later § 2255 motions may be subject to strict limits.

The court noted that the judgment appeared to have become final on October 2, 2023, when the Supreme Court denied review, and described the general one-year filing period for a § 2255 motion. The opinion did not decide whether Lesane’s claims were timely or whether they had merit.

Ruling

The court stated that the application should be construed as a motion under § 2255 and granted Lesane leave to file an amended § 2255 motion by December 23, 2024. The amended filing had to be captioned “Amended Motion” and use docket number 24-CV-6989. Lesane could instead notify the court in writing by that date that he wished to withdraw the application. If he did not respond, and could not show good cause for the failure, the application would be deemed withdrawn and would not be recharacterized as a § 2255 motion.

The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. It also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Lesane had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The order did not resolve the underlying challenges to his conviction or sentence.