Davis v. United States
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-01131
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Davis v. United States, Judge Ramos denied Davis’s late sentence-challenge motion, finding it lacked a legal or factual basis for relief.
Raheen Davis, whose motion to set aside his federal sentence was denied; the United States, which opposed the motion.
What happened
In Davis v. United States, Raheen Davis asked the court to set aside his sentence, claiming that government figures and others were torturing him with a military satellite and violating his constitutional rights. His conviction followed a jury trial, and his appeal was dismissed in 2010.
The court said Davis’s motion was filed more than eleven years after his conviction became final. It found that he had not shown circumstances that would justify extending the filing deadline. The court also said that, even if the motion had been timely, it did not identify a legal or factual basis for setting aside his sentence.
Judge Ramos denied the motion. He also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Davis v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-01131
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 14, 2022
Background
Raheen Davis challenged his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to seek relief from a sentence that violates the Constitution or federal law, was imposed without jurisdiction, exceeds the legal maximum, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack. After a January 2009 jury trial, Davis was convicted of assaulting a federal corrections officer and possessing a weapon in prison. On September 16, 2009, Judge Deborah A. Batts sentenced him to 210 months in prison, with 110 months to be served consecutively to a sentence previously imposed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. The Second Circuit dismissed Davis’s appeal on June 24, 2010.
Davis’s current filing claimed that former President Barack Obama, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, former Assistant United States Attorney Katherine Lemire, and five Department of Justice brain surgeons were torturing him in his cell with a military satellite. He also stated that President Obama had ordered his assassination.
Timeliness
The court explained that a federal prisoner generally must file a motion under § 2255 within one year of the latest of several specified events, including when the conviction becomes final or when the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through reasonable diligence. Because Davis’s appeal was dismissed on June 24, 2010, the court concluded that his conviction became final more than eleven years before he filed this motion.
The court found that Davis had not provided facts showing that he had pursued his rights diligently or that an extraordinary circumstance prevented a timely filing. It also noted that records from an earlier related proceeding showed that Davis had raised similar surveillance and torture concerns since 2017.
Basis for Relief
The court stated that a § 2255 motion must identify the grounds for relief and summarize the supporting facts. It also explained that a hearing is not required when allegations are vague, conclusory, or plainly unbelievable. The court said that Davis’s filing did not assert a substantive ground for relief and, even when read generously, was plainly unbelievable and did not identify any legal or factual basis that could entitle him to relief under § 2255.
Ruling and Disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Davis’s motion. The court also ruled that Davis had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional-right violation, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Davis, terminate the motion, close the case, and terminate a motion in the related criminal case.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court rejected the sentence challenge as untimely and did not decide a substantive legal claim concerning Davis’s sentence.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.