Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 2, 2020

Jackson v. United States

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:20-cv-04112
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Judge Gardephe transferred Jackson v. United States to the Second Circuit because Jackson’s second request for relief required appellate authorization.

Who this affects

Frederick E. Jackson’s second request for relief from his conviction was transferred to the Second Circuit for authorization; the district-court case was closed.

What happened

In Jackson v. United States, Frederick E. Jackson, who was incarcerated and representing himself, asked to challenge his criminal conviction under a federal law allowing prisoners to seek post-conviction relief.

The court said Jackson had already made an earlier request challenging the same conviction, and that request had been decided on its merits. The new request was therefore a second request requiring permission from the federal appeals court before the district court could consider it.

Judge Gardephe transferred the motion to the Second Circuit and closed the district-court case. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied fee-free status for any appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jackson v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-04112
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
June 2, 2020

Background

Frederick E. Jackson, who was incarcerated at FCI Talladega in Alabama and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the judgment of conviction in his criminal case. The opinion states that Jackson had previously filed a § 2255 motion challenging the same judgment and that the earlier motion had been decided on its merits.

Reasoning

Because the earlier motion was decided on the merits, the court treated Jackson’s new filing as a second or “successive” § 2255 motion. Federal law requires a person to obtain authorization from the appropriate federal appeals court before filing such a motion in the district court. The court stated that Jackson therefore had to ask the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to pursue the motion. The opinion also notes that authorization requires a showing based on newly discovered evidence or a new constitutional rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court.

Ruling

The court transferred the § 2255 motion to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and closed the district-court case. It stated that, if the appeals court authorized Jackson to proceed, he could ask to reopen the case under the same civil docket number. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the motion made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. In addition, it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Paul G. Gardephe signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.