Clark v. Pliler
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03451
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Clark v. Pliler, Judge Swain transferred Clark’s repeat federal post-conviction motion to the Third Circuit because it required appellate permission.
James Edward Clark, whose filing was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and whose district-court action was closed.
What happened
In Clark v. Pliler, James Edward Clark, representing himself while incarcerated, challenged his federal conviction and sentence through a petition labeled as a request under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He had already challenged the same conviction and sentence in an earlier motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied on the merits and affirmed on appeal.
The court ruled that Clark’s filing was properly treated as a second or successive § 2255 motion. Such a motion requires permission from the appropriate federal appeals court before it can proceed in a district court. Because Clark had not shown that he received that permission, the court transferred the motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Judge Swain transferred the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and closed the district-court case. She also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Clark v. Pliler · No. 1:22-cv-03451
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
James Edward Clark, who was incarcerated at FCI Otisville, filed a self-represented petition labeled as a request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenged the constitutionality of his federal conviction and sentence. The opinion states that the conviction and sentence had been entered in an earlier federal criminal case.
The court explained that a federal prisoner generally must use 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than § 2241, to challenge a federal conviction or sentence. Clark had previously filed a § 2255 motion challenging the same conviction and sentence. That earlier motion was denied on the merits by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the denial was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Court’s Analysis
Because Clark’s prior § 2255 motion had been decided on the merits, the court treated the new filing as a “second or successive” § 2255 motion. A second or successive motion cannot be filed in a district court without authorization from the appropriate court of appeals. The court stated that Clark had not indicated that he received such authorization.
The court therefore concluded that the appropriate court to consider whether Clark could pursue the motion was the Third Circuit. Following the procedure for transferring second or successive motions, the court transferred the action there under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, a statute allowing transfer when another court is the proper forum.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the second or successive § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The order closed the district-court action. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the motion made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. Separately, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The opinion transferred the motion on authorization and jurisdictional grounds; it did not decide the merits of Clark’s constitutional challenge to his conviction or sentence.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.