Davis v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-02410
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Davis v. United States, Judge Briccetti denied Mykai Davis’s motion to challenge his conviction without prejudice because his direct appeal was pending.
Mykai Davis’s § 2255 motion was denied without prejudice while his direct appeal remained pending. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Davis v. United States, Mykai Davis asked the court to set aside his conviction and sentence through a motion under a federal law that allows prisoners to challenge federal convictions. His direct appeal from his amended judgment was still pending in the Second Circuit.
The court said the motion was premature because the appeal was ongoing. Although the court could have considered the motion, it declined to do so to avoid having the same issues before two courts and to avoid making a decision that the appeal could make meaningless.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied the motion without prejudice, meaning the ruling did not bar Davis from bringing the motion again. The court also refused to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Davis v. United States · No. 7:21-cv-02410
- Vincent Briccetti
- Mar. 23, 2021
Background
Mykai Davis asked the court to vacate, or set aside, his federal conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Davis had not appealed from the original judgment entered on July 14, 2017. He later filed an earlier § 2255 motion, after which the court ordered resentencing based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). The court resentenced Davis on July 10, 2020, and entered an amended judgment on July 13, 2020.
Davis then filed a notice of appeal from the amended judgment. The opinion states that the appeal, identified as Second Circuit case number 20-2462, was still pending when Davis filed the present § 2255 motion.
Ruling
The court denied the § 2255 motion without prejudice as premature. The court explained that, while it was not strictly prohibited from deciding the motion during the pending appeal, judicial economy favored waiting. Considering the motion could create confusion or waste time by placing the same issues before the district court and the court of appeals. The district court also did not want to issue a decision that could be made meaningless by the outcome of the direct appeal.
Other Orders
The court ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Davis had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. A certificate of appealability is court authorization required for an appeal from certain post-conviction rulings. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required court fees. The opinion states that the court would mail Davis a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.