Ghailani v. United States

Background

Ahmed Ghailani was convicted of conspiring to bomb the United States embassies in Tanzania and Kenya under 18 U.S.C. § 844(f), (n). The jury also found that his conduct directly or proximately caused a death, permitting an enhanced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(3). He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2011. The conviction was affirmed in 2013, and the court denied his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in 2016. The Court of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability in 2017.

Ghailani later submitted several motions without a lawyer. The court treated them as including a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 challenging an unspecified jurisdictional defect and relying on Davis; requests for more time to amend or clarify that motion; and an argument that the statute of conviction was unconstitutionally vague. The court denied those motions but initially allowed Ghailani additional time to supplement or clarify the Rule 60 motion. It later denied further requests to extend the deadline.

Current Motions

Ghailani’s May 19, 2021 motion again sought more time to clarify the Rule 60 motion. He argued that he had not received the court’s August and December 2020 orders, asked the court to obtain evidence from the prison mailroom, repeated his Davis argument, and sought permission to raise an unspecified jurisdictional challenge. He alternatively requested certificates of appealability from earlier orders. He also submitted materials concerning a complaint to the Bureau of Prisons about delivery of the court’s orders.

Court’s Analysis

The court denied the request for more time. It reasoned that the August 2020 order set an earlier deadline, the December 2020 order extended the deadline until February 2, 2021, and the court had already denied two requests to extend the February deadline. The court also found that Ghailani’s January 2021 filing showed that he knew about the December order and had sought an extension before the February deadline. The court stated that the Rule 60 litigation had ended no later than March 21, 2021, so there was no ongoing litigation to stay or extend.

The court also rejected reconsideration of its March and April 2021 orders. Reconsideration is appropriate when a new argument or evidence could reasonably change the prior decision. The court found that Ghailani had presented neither. It further explained that Davis and the Second Circuit’s decision in Mezer concerned language in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), while Ghailani’s conviction involved 18 U.S.C. § 844(f), (n), with enhanced penalties under § 844(f)(3). The court therefore concluded that those decisions did not affect Ghailani’s conviction.

The court declined to order evidence from the prison mailroom because Ghailani’s failure to receive the earlier orders was immaterial to the ruling. It also noted that Ghailani was not asserting a claim against the Bureau of Prisons in the current motion and that such a claim would not properly be before this court. Because Ghailani had not identified the substance of his proposed jurisdictional challenge, the court said there was nothing on that issue for it to decide.

Disposition

The court denied Ghailani’s motions listed in the conclusion, including the May 19 motion and the June 8 and June 16 submissions. It also denied a certificate of appealability and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The order directed the Clerk to mail a copy to Ghailani by certified mail with a return receipt requested.