Castagnetta v. United States

Background

Mark Castagnetta, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion seeking to reopen, vacate, and set aside his conviction and sentence. He also asked the court to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and to allow an oversized brief. The challenged conviction and sentence arose in his criminal case, No. 7:16-CR-0770 (CS).

District Court’s Analysis

The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is generally the proper procedure for a federal prisoner to challenge a federal conviction or sentence. Castagnetta had already filed a § 2255 motion, and the court denied that motion as untimely on May 6, 2019. Under the law cited by the court, a prior § 2255 motion dismissed as time-barred counts as an adjudication on the merits when deciding whether a later filing is second or successive—that is, a repeat motion subject to additional filing restrictions.

The court therefore recharacterized Castagnetta’s current submission as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Before such a motion may be filed in a district court, the person seeking relief must obtain authorization from the appropriate court of appeals. The opinion states that Castagnetta did not indicate that he had received that authorization.

Ruling

Judge Cathy Seibel transferred the second or successive § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, citing the interest of justice and the practice of transferring unauthorized repeat motions to the appropriate appellate court. The order states that the district-court action is closed. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the motion did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.