Corley v. Nathan
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-01283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Corley v. Nathan, Judge McMahon denied the request to compel action and fee return, granted deficiency relief, and allowed 30 days to oppose relabeling under Section 2255.
Royce Corley, who filed the self-represented petition, must decide within 30 days whether to withdraw it or explain why it should not be treated as a Section 2255 motion. His mandamus request and fee-return request were denied, while his request to vacate the deficiency order was granted.
What happened
In Corley v. Nathan, Royce Corley filed a self-represented petition under Section 2241 seeking a ruling on his pending motion for a new trial. He was serving a federal sentence and had also filed a separate motion under Section 2255 to challenge that sentence.
Corley argued that the delay in deciding his new-trial motion was unreasonable and prejudicial. He sought immediate release if no decision came within 90 days, an order requiring the attorney general to seek dismissal of the criminal case, and return of his $5 filing fee. The court said his filing challenged his conviction rather than how his sentence was being carried out, so it intended to treat the filing as a Section 2255 motion.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon denied the request to compel action for failure to state a claim, denied the request to return the filing fee, and granted the request to vacate the deficiency order. She gave Corley 30 days to withdraw the filing or explain why it should not be treated as a supplemental Section 2255 filing; the court also declined to issue an appeal certificate and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Corley v. Nathan · No. 1:20-cv-01283
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 20, 2020
Background
Royce Corley filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and paid the $5 filing fee. He sought a ruling on a motion for a new trial that had been pending since 2017. He alleged that the delay was unreasonable and had prejudiced him. He also summarized alleged errors in his criminal proceedings and the grounds for his new-trial motion.
Corley requested immediate release if no decision issued within 90 days. He also asked the court to require Attorney General William Pelham Barr to seek dismissal of the indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), and he sought return of the filing fee. When he filed this action, he was incarcerated in a federal correctional institution in Virginia; the opinion states that he later resided in a residential reentry facility in Brooklyn, New York.
Corley had previously filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his sentence, and that motion remained pending in a separate related proceeding. The court explained that Section 2241 generally addresses how a federal sentence is carried out, while Section 2255 is generally used by a federal prisoner to challenge the conviction or sentence itself. The court concluded that Corley's filing attacked the integrity of his conviction and sought a ruling on his new-trial motion, rather than challenging the execution of his sentence.
Recharacterization of the Petition
The court stated that it intended to recharacterize, or treat, the Section 2241 petition as a motion under Section 2255. Because Corley was proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave him 30 days either to withdraw the application or to show why it should not be recharacterized. If he did not respond within that period, the court stated that it would treat the filing as a Section 2255 motion. If he chose to proceed under Section 2255, the court stated that the filing would be docketed as a supplemental filing in the separate pending proceeding.
The court also noted that a Section 2241 petition concerning physical confinement generally must be filed where the custodian is located, and that the petitioner generally must first pursue available prison-administration remedies. The court expressly stated that it was not reaching those issues at that time.
Request to Compel Government Action
Corley cited 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which gives federal district courts authority over actions seeking to compel a federal officer or agency to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. The court explained that this remedy, called mandamus, is available only in extraordinary circumstances and ordinarily cannot be used by a district court to control a matter pending before that same district court.
The conclusion states that the application for mandamus relief was denied for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Filing Fee and Deficiency Order
The court explained that Corley became obligated to pay the $5 filing fee when he filed the petition and that no authority allowed the court to refund, reimburse, or suspend that fee. The court therefore denied his request to return the filing fee.
The court also granted Corley's request to vacate the earlier deficiency order. That order had been issued because the docket did not immediately show receipt of his fee and had directed him either to pay the fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees.
Other Dispositions
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Corley a copy of the order and note service on the docket. It stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Corley had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying appellate fees.
Classification
This is a procedural order. The court ruled on the threshold treatment of the filing, denied mandamus relief for failure to state a claim, and addressed the filing fee and deficiency order without deciding the merits of Corley's new-trial request or his underlying criminal claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.