Salahuddin v. Davis
- Nelson Roman
- 7:25-cv-03215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Salahuddin v. Davis, Judge Roman dismissed Brenda Salahuddin’s cases without prejudice because she could not litigate her sons’ claims for them.
Brenda Salahuddin’s two civil actions and her sons, Anwar Salahuddin and Quadri Salahuddin, whose claims Brenda attempted to pursue on their behalf.
What happened
Salahuddin v. Davis involved two consolidated cases filed by Brenda Salahuddin without a lawyer on behalf of her sons, Anwar and Quadri Salahuddin. She challenged their convictions and sentences and sought their release, return of photographs and fingerprints, expungement of criminal records, restitution, and other immediate relief.
The court said Brenda had not shown why Anwar and Quadri could not seek relief themselves or that she was acting in their best interests. It also said that, as a nonlawyer, she could not bring other types of claims for her sons. The court therefore did not decide whether the convictions, sentences, or other underlying claims were legally valid.
Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed both cases without prejudice. He denied without prejudice the post-conviction relief claims, the other claims, and the applications for immediate relief. He also warned Brenda that continued improper filings for other people could lead to a requirement that she obtain permission before filing another civil case without a lawyer; the court declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Salahuddin v. Davis · No. 7:25-cv-03215
- Nelson Roman
- May 7, 2025
Background
The court consolidated two civil actions solely for purposes of this order. Brenda Salahuddin appeared without a lawyer and filed papers on behalf of her sons, Quadri Salahuddin and Anwar Salahuddin. The papers challenged their convictions and sentences in a related criminal action and sought their immediate release, the return of their photographs and fingerprints, expungement of records, complete restitution, and other relief, including hearings, vacatur of detention warrants, dismissal of charges, and removal from a detention-related list.
The court noted that Quadri and Anwar had been convicted after jury trials and sentenced to prison terms followed by supervised release. The opinion states that Quadri’s appeal was pending and that Anwar’s appeal appeared to be pending, although no appellate docket number had yet been assigned for Anwar’s appeal.
Claims Challenging the Convictions and Sentences
The court construed Brenda’s challenges to her sons’ convictions and sentences as claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a federal sentence, brought in a “next friend” capacity. A person acting as a next friend for someone else must show why the person with the legal claim cannot appear personally and must show that the next friend is dedicated to that person’s best interests. The person seeking next-friend status bears the burden of establishing the right to act.
Although Brenda had a significant relationship with Anwar and Quadri as their mother, the court found that she had not alleged a legitimate reason why either son could not seek relief personally or that she was acting in either son’s best interests. The court therefore denied the § 2255 relief sought on their behalf without prejudice for lack of standing. The court also stated that notice about recharacterizing the filings as § 2255 motions was unnecessary because denying the relief without prejudice would not trigger restrictions on later or successive § 2255 motions.
Other Claims
The court construed Brenda’s requests for non-post-conviction relief, including compensation, as claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court explained that federal law permits a person to represent themselves or to appear through a licensed attorney, but a nonlawyer cannot bring a non-post-conviction lawsuit on behalf of another person. Because Brenda did not allege that she was an attorney, the court dismissed those claims without prejudice.
Disposition and Warning
The court dismissed both civil actions without prejudice. It denied without prejudice the § 2255 relief challenging Anwar’s and Quadri’s convictions and sentences, denied without prejudice the other relief sought on their behalf, and denied without prejudice the applications for immediate relief. The court warned Brenda that continued improper pro se litigation on behalf of other people could result in an order requiring her to obtain permission before filing another civil action without a lawyer in that court.
Judge Nelson S. Roman also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue for the § 2255 claims and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so fee-free status for an appeal was denied. The clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the actions.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.