Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 7, 2020

El-Hage v. United States

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:20-cv-05078
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In El-Hage v. United States, Judge Kaplan transferred El-Hage’s new post-conviction motion to the Court of Appeals because it was a second or successive filing.

Who this affects

Wadih El-Hage’s new Section 2255 application was transferred from the district court to the Court of Appeals; the United States was the respondent.

What happened

In El-Hage v. United States, Wadih El-Hage challenged the federal judgment under which he received life sentences on two counts and other concurrent sentences. He had previously filed a motion under Section 2255, and that motion was denied on the merits.

El-Hage filed a new Section 2255 motion, apparently relying on a 2019 Supreme Court decision. Because the new motion challenged the same judgment as his earlier motion, the court treated it as a second or successive motion. Federal law required permission from the Court of Appeals before the district court could consider it.

The court transferred the application and its order to the Court of Appeals. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan ordered the Clerk to make the transfer and mail El-Hage a copy of the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
El-Hage v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-05078
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
July 7, 2020

Background

Wadih El-Hage was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to murder United States nationals, conspiracy to murder United States officers and employees, conspiracy to damage or destroy United States property, and multiple counts of making false statements to a federal grand jury concerning his knowledge of and association with al Qaeda and its leaders and members. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but ordered resentencing. On remand, the district court imposed life imprisonment on the first and third counts, twenty years’ imprisonment on the property-destruction count, and five years’ imprisonment on each false-statement count, with the sentences running concurrently. The Court of Appeals later affirmed that sentence.

In April 2016, El-Hage filed a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied that motion on the merits. On June 8, 2020, he filed another § 2255 motion, ostensibly based on United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).

Analysis

A federal prisoner generally may not file a “second or successive” § 2255 motion challenging the same judgment unless the Court of Appeals first authorizes the filing. The court concluded that El-Hage’s new motion challenged the same judgment involved in his earlier § 2255 proceeding. It therefore determined that the motion was second or successive and that the district court lacked authority to address it without permission from the Court of Appeals.

Disposition

Following the procedure established by the Court of Appeals, the district court ordered the Clerk to transfer the application and the order to the Court of Appeals. The Clerk was also directed to mail El-Hage a copy of the order. The opinion does not state that the district court ruled on the merits of the new § 2255 arguments.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.