Jaber v. Carvajal
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-08123
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jaber v. Carvajal, Judge Stanton treated Jaber’s petition as a repeat sentence challenge, transferred it to the Second Circuit, and denied counsel without prejudice.
The order affected Faouzi Abdul-Menhem Jaber’s challenge to his federal conviction and sentence by transferring it to the Second Circuit for authorization review and denying his request for appointed counsel without prejudice.
What happened
In Jaber v. Carvajal, Faouzi Abdul-Menhem Jaber, who was representing himself while incarcerated, challenged the constitutionality of his federal conviction and sentence through a petition filed under a federal habeas law.
The court determined that the proper filing was a motion challenging the federal sentence, not the type of petition Jaber filed. Because Jaber had already filed a similar motion that was decided on its merits, the court treated the current filing as a second or successive motion requiring permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Judge Louis L. Stanton transferred the filing to the Second Circuit so Jaber could request that permission. The judge denied Jaber’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice to reconsidering it if the Second Circuit authorized the motion, and the order closed the case.
The detailed version
- Jaber v. Carvajal · No. 1:20-cv-08123
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 8, 2020
Background
Faouzi Abdul-Menhem Jaber, who was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Coleman, Florida, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenged the constitutionality of his federal conviction and sentence. The opinion states that Jaber represented himself.
Recharacterization of the Filing
The court held that the relief Jaber sought had to be pursued through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct a federal sentence, rather than through a § 2241 petition. Jaber had previously filed a § 2255 motion challenging the same conviction and sentence, and that motion had been decided on its merits.
Because the earlier motion had been decided before the current filing, the court treated—or “recharacterized”—the current § 2241 petition as a second or successive § 2255 motion. A second or successive § 2255 motion requires authorization from the appropriate federal appeals court before it may proceed in a district court. The opinion states that Jaber did not indicate that he had received authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Disposition
The court transferred the recharacterized motion to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 so Jaber could seek authorization. The court denied Jaber’s motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice to reconsidering it if the Second Circuit granted authorization for the district court to consider the motion. The order also stated that the action was closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.