Hicks v. United States
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:25-cv-02564
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hicks v. United States, Judge Seibel denied Wayne Hicks’s sentence challenge without prejudice because his direct appeal was pending.
Wayne Hicks’s federal sentence challenge was denied without prejudice; the court did not decide the merits of his claims, and the civil case was closed while his direct criminal appeal remained pending.
What happened
In Hicks v. United States, Wayne Hicks, who was incarcerated and representing himself, challenged his federal sentence under a law allowing prisoners to attack unlawful sentences. He had pleaded guilty to several robbery, drug, and firearm offenses.
Hicks had already appealed his conviction and sentence, and that appeal was still pending. The court therefore declined to consider the substance of his sentence challenge, ruling that the challenge was filed too early.
Judge Seibel denied the challenge without prejudice, meaning Hicks may file it again after the appeal ends if relief is still needed. The court closed the civil case, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Hicks v. United States · No. 7:25-cv-02564
- Cathy Seibel
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Wayne Hicks, who was incarcerated at FCI Otisville and represented himself, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the legality of his sentence. The sentence arose from his criminal case, United States v. Hicks, No. 21-CR-293-3 (S.D.N.Y.). Hicks had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, Hobbs Act robbery, using a facility in interstate commerce to commit a crime of violence in furtherance of unlawful activity, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. Judgment was entered on April 10, 2024.
Hicks had also appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and that direct appeal remained pending. His § 2255 motion included a claim that his attorney had been ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal. The opinion states that Hicks was pursuing the appeal with new counsel.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that defendants generally must pursue a direct appeal before seeking relief under § 2255. Although a district court may sometimes consider a § 2255 motion while a direct appeal is pending, the court said that doing so is generally inappropriate because the appeal could affect or make unnecessary the district court’s work on the motion.
The court declined to reach the merits of Hicks’s claims and found the motion premature. It also explained that if counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal had caused Hicks to lose his appeal opportunity, the appropriate remedy would be an opportunity to appeal. Because Hicks was already pursuing an appeal, the court concluded that it could not provide a remedy that he needed at that time.
Ruling and disposition
Judge Seibel denied the § 2255 motion without prejudice as prematurely filed. This permits Hicks to refile after the direct appeal is resolved if relief remains necessary. The Clerk of Court was directed to close No. 25-CV-2564. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the motion did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, and it certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.