Christie v. United States
- Richard Berman
- 1:18-cv-04762
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Christie v. United States, Judge Berman denied Christie’s motion to extend time or reconsider his previously denied federal post-conviction motion.
Alex Christie, whose motion was denied; the United States was the government party that opposed his earlier § 2255 motion.
What happened
In Christie v. United States, Alex Christie asked for more time and sought reconsideration of his earlier motion challenging his conviction under federal law. The court had denied that earlier motion on February 25, 2019.
The court said Christie identified no controlling decision or other information it had overlooked. It also said that seeking new relief or attacking the earlier decision on the merits could make the motion a successive post-conviction petition requiring certification from the Second Circuit, and Christie provided no evidence of such certification.
Judge Richard M. Berman denied Christie’s August 8, 2019 motion. The order did not change the earlier denial of Christie’s post-conviction motion.
The detailed version
- Christie v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-04762
- Richard Berman
- Jan. 15, 2020
Background
Alex Christie filed a motion dated August 8, 2019, titled “Motion to Request an Extension of Time and/or Reconsideration in the § 2255 Proceedings.” The court said the motion appeared to concern Christie’s earlier motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, dated May 21, 2018, and his response to the government’s opposition, dated November 19, 2018.
Section 2255 provides a procedure for a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The court had denied Christie’s § 2255 motion in a February 25, 2019 Decision and Order. In that earlier ruling, the court relied in part on Christie’s statements during his guilty-plea hearing that he had discussed his case and possible defenses with counsel, was satisfied with counsel’s advice, and was guilty of the drug and firearms charges.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied Christie’s August 8, 2019 motion. It stated that, even assuming the motion was properly filed and timely, Christie presented no controlling decisions or other information that the court had overlooked when it denied the earlier § 2255 motion. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that is generally unavailable unless overlooked authority or information could reasonably change the prior result.
The court also explained that a reconsideration motion that adds a new ground for relief or attacks the federal court’s earlier decision on the merits may qualify as a successive post-conviction petition. A district court may consider such a petition only after the Second Circuit certifies it. The court stated that Christie offered no evidence that the Second Circuit had issued that certification.
Disposition
Judge Richard M. Berman denied Christie’s motion, identified in the order as motion numbers 11 in case 18 Civ 4762 and 989 in case 15 Cr 288. The order left the February 25, 2019 denial of Christie’s § 2255 motion in place.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.