Ghailani v. United States
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:16-cv-04444
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ghailani v. United States, Judge Kaplan denied three motions but permitted later requests to amend or supplement them.
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, whose three motions were denied, and the United States, which was not yet required to respond to those motions.
What happened
Ghailani v. United States concerns Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani’s challenge to his federal conviction and sentence. The opinion states that his conviction and life sentence had already been upheld on appeal, and that an earlier motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 had been denied.
Ghailani filed three motions without a lawyer. The first challenged his conviction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, relying on an unspecified jurisdictional argument and a Supreme Court decision called Davis. The second sought 60 more days to amend the first motion, and the third sought permission to add another claim.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied all three motions. The judge did not decide the merits of the jurisdictional argument or the Davis argument, but said Ghailani could seek permission to amend or supplement the motions by September 23, 2020.
The detailed version
- Ghailani v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04444
- Lewis Kaplan
- Aug. 31, 2020
Background
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was convicted by a jury of conspiring to destroy buildings and property of the United States. The jury found him not guilty on the other 284 counts charged, according to the opinion, and he was sentenced principally to life imprisonment. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. The opinion also states that his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence, was denied in 2016, and that his request for a certificate allowing an appeal was denied in 2017.
The Motions
The court considered three motions, all filed without a lawyer and treated as filed on June 23, 2020 under the mailbox rule. The mailbox rule generally treats a filing by a prisoner as filed when the prisoner gives it to prison authorities for mailing.
Motion No. 1 was titled as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), 60(b)(6), and 60(d)(3). In substance, the court understood it as challenging Ghailani’s conviction based on an unspecified jurisdictional defect and on the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis. The court said Ghailani had not explained the jurisdictional argument enough for the court to decide whether it had merit. The court also said it did not yet see a basis for the Davis argument, even assuming the argument was properly before it.
Motion No. 2 sought a 60-day extension to amend Motion No. 1. The court discussed the rules governing challenges under sections 2254 and 2255 and concluded that Rule 15’s time limits for amending pleadings did not apparently apply because Motion No. 1 was not a “pleading” under Rule 7. The court therefore said no extension was required and that Ghailani could seek permission to amend Motion No. 1 before the court decided it.
Motion No. 3 sought permission to supplement Motion No. 1. The court said that motion also appeared unnecessary.
Ruling
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied Motions Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The order did not decide the merits of Ghailani’s jurisdictional or Davis-based challenges. It stated that Ghailani could move for permission to supplement or amend Motions Nos. 1 and/or 2 no later than September 23, 2020. The court said it would wait until that date before deciding whether to require the government to respond.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.