Ganan Ramirez v. United States
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-04009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ganan Ramirez v. United States, Judge Engelmayer dismissed Ramirez’s post-conviction petition without prejudice because he did not sign it, without deciding its merits.
The ruling dismissed Carlos Alberto Ganan Ramirez’s § 2255 petition without prejudice and terminated the federal post-conviction case; the opinion does not state any change to his underlying conviction, sentence, or supervised release.
What happened
In Ganan Ramirez v. United States, Carlos Alberto Ganan Ramirez challenged his 80-month prison sentence, arguing that his lawyer had failed to seek a lower sentence based on sentencing disparities, his cooperation with authorities, and other factors. He filed the challenge under a law allowing federal prisoners to seek relief from their convictions or sentences.
Ramirez represented himself, but he submitted his petition without a required handwritten signature. Judge William H. Pauley ordered him to provide one, and Judge Paul A. Engelmayer later gave him another opportunity. Ramirez did not provide the signature or update his address after court mail was returned as undeliverable.
Judge Engelmayer dismissed the petition without prejudice because Ramirez repeatedly failed to provide the required signature. The judge did not decide the petition’s merits, although he said the government’s opposition appeared substantial and noted that the sentencing record seemed to contradict some of Ramirez’s arguments.
The detailed version
- Ganan Ramirez v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-04009
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 13, 2021
Background
Carlos Alberto Ganan Ramirez pleaded guilty on January 25, 2019, to engaging and attempting to engage in monetary transactions involving criminally derived property worth more than $10,000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957(a) and 2. He received an 80-month prison sentence and two years of supervised release.
On May 7, 2020, Ramirez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure through which a federal prisoner may seek relief from a conviction or sentence. He argued that his defense lawyer provided constitutionally ineffective assistance during sentencing by failing to seek a lower sentence based on alleged sentencing disparities, Ramirez’s alleged substantial assistance to authorities, and other factors.
Failure to Sign the Petition
Ramirez filed the case without a lawyer and submitted the petition without a signature. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) requires a filing by an unrepresented party to contain that party’s signature. Judge William H. Pauley ordered Ramirez to submit a signature page with an original signature within 30 days.
The government filed its opposition, but Ramirez did not submit the required signature page or a response. After the case was reassigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on July 28, 2021, Judge Engelmayer again directed Ramirez to provide the signature within 30 days. The Clerk mailed the order to Ramirez’s last known address, but the mailing was returned on August 11, 2021, as undeliverable and unable to be forwarded. Ramirez had not provided an updated address.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Engelmayer concluded that Ramirez had persistently failed to provide the required signature despite receiving notice and having had almost a year to correct the problem. The court dismissed Ramirez’s § 2255 petition, without prejudice, and did not reach the merits of his claims. The court directed the Clerk to close the motion at Docket 37 and terminate the case.
The court added that, on its initial review, the government’s opposition appeared substantial. It noted that the co-conspirators Ramirez identified had not yet been sentenced when Ramirez was sentenced, and that his lawyer’s sentencing submission had requested a lower sentence based on the statutory sentencing factors, including avoiding unwarranted disparities. The court also noted that defense counsel had brought Ramirez’s attempts to cooperate with the government to the court’s attention. The court stated that Ramirez’s remaining arguments appeared to seek reconsideration of his sentence rather than present proper grounds for a § 2255 petition. These observations were not the basis for deciding the petition’s merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.