Baldeo v. United States of America

Background

Albert Baldeo, proceeding without a lawyer, had previously been convicted after a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and six counts of obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and two years of supervised release; the supervised release had ended by the time of this order.

Baldeo filed several petitions and letters seeking a writ of audita querela, an extraordinary post-conviction remedy, to vacate or reverse his convictions. He also asked to remove Judge Paul Crotty from the case and sought an order requiring the United States Attorney’s Office to remove references to his criminal proceedings from Google and other search engines.

Court’s Analysis

The court found the request to remove Judge Crotty from the case moot, meaning that the issue was no longer live, because the case had been reassigned on July 8, 2024.

The court explained that audita querela is available in only very limited circumstances involving a legal objection that arose after a conviction and cannot be addressed through another post-conviction remedy. Because Baldeo had already pursued unsuccessful direct appeals and a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court held that audita querela relief was legally unavailable. For the same reasons given in an earlier round of this case, the court denied the request again.

To the extent Baldeo’s filings were treated as motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, the court also denied those requests. It found them untimely and without merit because they challenged the underlying criminal conviction and trial rather than a problem with an earlier collateral proceeding. The court also considered a report prepared by a private investigative firm, but found it insufficient because it was conclusory, vague, and unpersuasive, and because the former witnesses had not formally confirmed the report.

Finally, the court refused to order removal of online references to Baldeo’s criminal proceedings. Although Baldeo was displeased that the information remained publicly available, the court stated that transparency in the criminal justice system is essential.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon concluded that Baldeo’s request for Judge Crotty’s recusal was moot. The court denied his petition for a writ of audita querela, denied the request to require removal of references to his criminal proceedings from the internet, and denied any Rule 60 relief. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and directed the clerk to terminate all open motions and petitions and mail the order to the address listed on the docket.