Dupree v. Rickard
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04174
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Dupree v. Rickard, Judge Garnett transferred Dupree’s conviction claims to the Third Circuit and ordered an answer on his remaining claims.
David Dupree’s conviction and resentencing claims were transferred to the Third Circuit, while his remaining claims concerning prison-time credits remain pending for the government’s response.
What happened
In Dupree v. Rickard, David Dupree filed a self-represented petition challenging his federal conviction and seeking resentencing, while also challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to grant certain prison-time credits.
The court concluded that the conviction and resentencing claims belonged under a different federal procedure and had already been raised in earlier proceedings. Because those claims required permission from the Third Circuit before proceeding, the court separated and transferred them there.
For the remaining claims about prison-time credits, the court ordered the government to respond within 60 days. Judge Margaret M. Garnett also stated that no appeal certificate would issue for the transferred claims and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Dupree v. Rickard · No. 1:25-cv-04174
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 7, 2025
Background
David Dupree, who is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenged his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), sought related resentencing, and challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to take steps to award him certain credits toward his prison time.
Conviction and Resentencing Claims
The court explained that a federal prisoner generally uses Section 2255—not Section 2241—to challenge the imposition of a conviction or sentence. Dupree had previously filed multiple Section 2255 motions concerning the same conviction or sentence, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania had denied those motions on the merits. The court therefore construed his current conviction and resentencing claims as seeking second or successive relief under Section 2255.
A second or successive Section 2255 motion requires authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals before it may proceed in a district court. Because Dupree had not indicated that he received authorization from the Third Circuit, the court severed those claims and transferred them, as a separate second or successive Section 2255 action, to the Third Circuit for a decision on whether he could pursue them in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Remaining Section 2241 Claims
The court did not resolve the remaining claims seeking relief under Section 2241, including the claims concerning prison-time credits. Instead, it directed the Clerk to notify the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and ordered that office to file an answer or another response within 60 days of the order. Dupree may file reply papers within 30 days after being served with the government’s response.
Disposition
The court transferred the conviction and resentencing claims to the Third Circuit as a separate second or successive Section 2255 action and directed a response to the remaining Section 2241 claims. It stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue for the Section 2255 motion because it made no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.