Rivera v. United States
- Kimba Wood
- 1:16-cv-05238
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rivera v. United States, Judge Wood granted two amendment motions and denied one as futile in Rivera’s sentence challenge.
Jesus Rivera’s federal sentence challenge was affected: he may proceed with the claims added through his first and third amendment motions, but not the claim in his second motion. The government must respond to the amended petition.
What happened
In Rivera v. United States, Jesus Rivera asked to amend his petition challenging his sentence under a federal law that allows prisoners to seek correction of unlawful sentences. He filed one amendment request through counsel and another on his own, and later filed a third request through counsel.
Rivera’s first proposed amendment claimed that he did not understand the charges when he pleaded guilty. His second argued that his conduct involved a different firearm offense and that his sentence was improper. His third argued that his conviction depended on a firearm-law provision that the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutionally vague.
The court granted Rivera’s first and third motions to amend but denied his second motion because the court found it meritless and futile. Judge Kimba M. Wood directed the government to respond to the amended petition by February 21, 2020, and allowed Rivera to reply by March 13, 2020.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-05238
- Kimba Wood
- Jan. 29, 2020
Background
Jesus Rivera had pending a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure through which a federal prisoner may challenge a sentence. The court treated two petitions Rivera filed on June 8, 2018—one through counsel and one pro se, meaning without a lawyer for that filing—as one petition. The order addressed three motions to amend that petition.
Rivera’s First Motion to Amend, filed through counsel, sought to add a claim that he did not understand the nature of the charges when he pleaded guilty. His Second Motion to Amend, filed pro se, argued that his charged conduct fell under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), rather than § 924(j), the offense to which he formally pleaded guilty. Rivera argued that he had therefore actually pleaded guilty to a § 924(c) violation, that his sentence was improper and barred by the applicable limitations period, and that counsel was ineffective for not objecting on those grounds.
Rivera’s Third Motion to Amend, filed through counsel, argued that the attempted-robbery predicate for his § 924(j) conviction qualified as a crime of violence only under the residual clause of § 924(c). Rivera relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, which held that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague, and argued that his conviction therefore lacked a valid predicate.
Legal standard
The court explained that Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to amend a § 2255 petition. Courts should freely allow amendments when justice requires, but may deny leave for reasons including futility, bad faith, undue delay, or undue prejudice. The government did not object to Rivera’s motions.
Ruling
The court found that the interests of justice supported granting the First and Third Motions to Amend. It found the Second Motion to Amend meritless and futile because, regardless of whether Rivera’s plea was proper, he pleaded guilty to a § 924(j) violation—not a § 924(c) violation, as the motion asserted.
Accordingly, the court GRANTED Rivera’s First and Third Motions to Amend and DENIED his Second Motion to Amend. The government was ordered to respond to the amended petition by February 21, 2020, and Rivera was allowed to file a reply by March 13, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.