Hilliard v. United States

Background

Rosheen Hilliard, representing himself, filed a submission alleging that the court and the United States had failed to establish personal jurisdiction over him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(1) and a long-arm statute. He said this deprived him of due process in his criminal case. Hilliard stated that he was not challenging his conviction or sentence.

The court initially construed the submission as a possible motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to seek relief attacking the validity of a conviction or sentence. The court warned that a criminal defendant ordinarily has only one opportunity to present claims under that statute and gave Hilliard an opportunity to withdraw the motion if he did not want to proceed under § 2255. Hilliard responded that his submission was not a challenge to his sentence or conviction and was not a § 2255 motion. The court therefore did not construe the matter as a § 2255 motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court nevertheless addressed the relief Hilliard requested. It explained that Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i), Rules 4(c)(1), 9(b), and 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the long-arm statute, apply in civil cases and do not apply to Hilliard’s criminal case. The court also found that the civil personal-jurisdiction decision Hilliard cited did not apply to a criminal case.

As a matter of criminal law, the court stated that a federal district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant when the defendant is charged with a federal crime within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and is brought before the court. The court found those conditions satisfied here: Hilliard was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, an offense against the laws of the United States, and he was arrested and brought before the court. The court stated that it had subject-matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231.

Rulings and Disposition

The court denied Hilliard’s claim that it lacked personal jurisdiction over him. It also denied his request for immediate release and 100 million euros in damages, as well as his request that the court recuse itself.

The court concluded that Hilliard had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it ordered that no certificate of appealability issue. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The clerk was instructed to close civil case number 20 CV 8151.