Lopez v. United States
- Paul Crotty
- 1:16-cv-03342-PAC
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lopez v. United States, Judge Crotty transferred Lopez’s second sentence challenge to the Second Circuit because permission was required.
Amaury Lopez, Jr., whose second or successive motion challenging his federal conviction and sentence was transferred to the Second Circuit for authorization rather than decided by the district court.
What happened
In Lopez v. United States, Amaury Lopez, Jr., who was incarcerated and represented himself, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction and sentence. The court’s records showed that he had previously filed a § 2255 motion challenging the same conviction and sentence.
The court determined that the new motion was a second or successive motion because the earlier motion had been decided on its merits. Such a motion cannot be filed in the district court without authorization from the appropriate federal appeals court. Lopez would have to ask the Second Circuit for permission, based on newly discovered evidence or a new constitutional rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court.
The court transferred the motion to the Second Circuit and closed the district-court case, while allowing Lopez to seek reopening if the appeals court authorized the motion. The court also said that a certificate of appealability would not issue and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Paul A. Crotty issued the order.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-03342-PAC
- Paul Crotty
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
Amaury Lopez, Jr. filed a motion without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The order states that Lopez was incarcerated at United States Penitentiary Lewisburg. The motion challenged the same conviction and sentence that Lopez had challenged in an earlier § 2255 motion.
Issue
The court considered whether it could address the new motion in the district court. Because the earlier § 2255 motion had been decided on the merits, the court treated the new filing as a second or successive motion. Under the law cited by the court, a second or successive § 2255 motion requires authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit before it may proceed in the district court.
Ruling
The court transferred the motion to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and closed the district-court case. It stated that Lopez must seek permission from the Second Circuit and that he must show the motion is based on newly discovered evidence or a new constitutional rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court. The court said that, if the Second Circuit authorized the motion, Lopez could move to reopen the case under the civil docket number.
The court also determined that the motion did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order does not decide whether Lopez’s underlying conviction or sentence challenge has merit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.