Celli v. Perez

Background

Lucio Celli filed this action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. The complaint arose from his federal criminal proceedings and his pending appeal. Celli named Daniel Perez, his appellate lawyer; Benjamin Silverman, who represented him in the criminal case; Judges Brian Cogan and Paul Engelmayer; Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston; two United States Senate committees; committee employee Shannon Kopplin; Senator Chuck Schumer; and Randi Weingarten.

The complaint was partly difficult to understand. As described by the court, Celli sought orders requiring Perez to represent him in a way Celli wanted, including allowing him to submit a video brief. Celli also referred to audio recordings, sought to withdraw his guilty plea, requested recusal and sanctions against a prosecutor who was not named as a defendant, and alleged that various people had violated his constitutional rights. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and also asserted that diversity jurisdiction existed because he and Perez were citizens of different states.

Federal Claims

The court denied Celli’s request for an order directing Perez’s work on the appeal. It explained that federal courts do not prescribe how assigned lawyers perform their jobs and that, to the extent supervision of a Second Circuit Criminal Justice Act lawyer could be available, the Second Circuit—not this court—would address it. The court also noted that Celli had not shown that Perez was providing ineffective assistance or that other compelling circumstances justified replacing him.

The court said that a civil action was not the proper vehicle for challenging Celli’s federal conviction or the effectiveness of his trial or appellate lawyers. Those challenges generally must be raised on direct appeal or through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure used to challenge a federal conviction or sentence after the appropriate conditions are met.

The court declined to treat Celli’s complaint as a § 2255 motion. It said such a motion would be premature while Celli’s direct appeal was pending and would have to be filed in the Eastern District of New York, the court that imposed the sentence. The court therefore dismissed Celli’s constitutional challenges connected to his conviction without prejudice to pursuing them on direct appeal or through a later collateral challenge.

Diversity Jurisdiction

The court also rejected Celli’s asserted diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant and requires the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. Although the opinion stated that Celli and Perez were citizens of different states, it said most of the other defendants appeared to be citizens of New York, Celli’s state of citizenship. The opinion identified a possible exception for the Washington, D.C., defendants, but found that complete diversity was not present.

The court declined to give Celli an opportunity to amend the complaint to remove nondiverse defendants. It found amendment would be futile because Celli did not assert a state-law claim against Perez, the only diverse defendant identified in the discussion, and the court could not identify a state-law claim based on the allegations.

Warning and Disposition

The court noted that Celli had previously been told that a civil action was not the proper way to challenge his federal conviction. It warned that filing another civil action in this court challenging that conviction would result in an order barring him from filing a new action without prior permission.

The court dismissed without prejudice Celli’s constitutional challenges to his conviction, directed the Clerk to close the case, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion did not decide whether Celli’s conviction, sentence, or appellate representation was legally valid on the merits.