Hueston v. Pliler
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-07926
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hueston v. Pliler, Judge Swain transferred Hueston’s successive sentence challenge to the Second Circuit without deciding its merits.
Harry Hueston’s challenge was transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the required authorization process; the district court did not decide the merits of his conviction or sentence challenge.
What happened
Hueston v. Pliler involved Harry Hueston’s challenge to his federal conviction and sentence. The court said this type of challenge must generally be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not § 2241, and treated Hueston’s filing as a second or successive § 2255 motion because he had already filed one that was decided on the merits.
The court said Hueston had not shown that the Second Circuit had authorized a second motion. Instead of deciding the challenge, it transferred the motion to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and closed the action. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order. The ruling was procedural: it transferred the filing for the required appellate authorization and did not decide whether Hueston’s conviction or sentence was lawful.
The detailed version
- Hueston v. Pliler · No. 1:22-cv-07926
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
Harry Hueston, who was incarcerated at FCI Otisville, filed a pro se petition seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenged the constitutionality of his federal conviction and sentence.
Recharacterization of the filing
The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than § 2241, is generally the proper procedure for a federal prisoner challenging a conviction or sentence. Hueston had already filed a § 2255 motion concerning the same conviction and sentence, and that earlier motion had been denied on the merits. The court therefore treated the current filing as a second or successive § 2255 motion.
A second or successive § 2255 motion requires authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals before it may be filed in a district court. The court stated that Hueston had not indicated that he received such authorization from the Second Circuit.
Ruling
The court transferred the second or successive § 2255 motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, stating that the transfer was in the interest of justice. The order closed the action. It did not decide the constitutionality of Hueston’s conviction or sentence.
The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the motion made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Disposition
The motion was transferred to the Second Circuit, and the action was closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.