McLean v. United States

Background

Lenroy McLean was convicted after trial in March 2009 of conspiring to distribute hundreds of kilograms of cocaine. In March 2010, the court sentenced him to 228 months in prison and ordered forfeiture of $6 million in narcotics proceeds. The Second Circuit affirmed his conviction and sentence.

McLean previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The court denied that motion in 2016, and the Second Circuit dismissed his appeal. McLean later pursued additional challenges, including motions concerning cellphone records, wiretap affidavits, sentence reduction, compassionate release, discovery, and reopening his § 2255 proceedings. The opinion states that those efforts were denied or dismissed, and that the Second Circuit affirmed or dismissed the resulting appeals as described there.

The motions addressed in this order were McLean’s third motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to reopen his § 2255 proceedings, his motion to amend that request, motions seeking the judge’s recusal or disqualification, and a request for two subpoenas. McLean was representing himself.

Rule 60 Motions

Rule 60(b) permits a court to provide relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for specified reasons. In the context of a prior § 2255 proceeding, the court explained that Rule 60 relief is available only when the motion attacks the integrity of that earlier proceeding, not the underlying criminal conviction. A motion attacking the conviction may instead be treated as a successive § 2255 petition and transferred to the Court of Appeals for possible authorization, or the portion attacking the conviction may simply be denied as outside Rule 60.

McLean argued that 2020 letters from Sprint stating that older call-detail records had been purged showed that records used at his 2009 trial were fabricated and that this resulted in fraud on the court. The court characterized that argument as an attack on the integrity of the conviction, rather than on the integrity of the earlier § 2255 proceeding. The court therefore denied the Rule 60 motion because the relief sought was outside Rule 60.

The court also denied McLean’s motion to amend. The proposed additional arguments asserted that cocaine evidence from another defendant had been intertwined with McLean’s indictment and that the government had information about McLean’s location that it did not disclose before trial. The court again concluded that these arguments attacked the underlying conviction rather than the earlier § 2255 proceeding.

Recusal and Disqualification Motions

McLean sought the judge’s recusal or disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 and 144. Recusal means that a judge steps aside because impartiality might reasonably be questioned or because the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. The court stated that the relevant question was whether a reasonable person who knew all the facts could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality or significantly doubt that justice would be done without recusal.

The court found that McLean had not met that standard. He relied on numerous rulings that had gone against him, but the court explained that opinions formed during the current or earlier proceedings generally do not establish bias. The court also found that its prior rulings did not show the deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. The recusal and disqualification motions were therefore denied.

Subpoena Request

McLean submitted a one-paragraph request for two subpoenas without identifying whom he intended to subpoena or what documents or information he sought. The court construed the request as a request for discovery under Rule 6 of the rules governing § 2255 proceedings.

The court denied the request because McLean had no pending § 2255 motion and identified no other legal basis for discovery. The court also relied on the rule that there is no discovery before a § 2255 motion is filed.

Disposition

The court denied McLean’s motion to reopen, denied his motion to amend, denied his motions to recuse or disqualify the judge, and denied his motion for subpoenas. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because McLean had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so McLean could not proceed on appeal without paying the filing fee. The Clerk was directed to terminate the identified motions and mail McLean a copy of the order.