Taboada v. United States
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-08141
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Taboada v. United States, Judge Liman allowed withdrawal of the sentence challenge and transferred the prison-execution claims to New Jersey.
Ricardo Taboada, whose sentence-imposition claims may proceed as a Section 2255 motion unless he withdraws them within 60 days, and whose sentence-execution claims were transferred to the District of New Jersey.
What happened
In Taboada v. United States, Ricardo Taboada filed a self-represented petition challenging both the sentence imposed on him and the Bureau of Prisons’ execution of that sentence. He called the petition a request for an unusual form of criminal relief, but the court treated the claims under two different federal statutes.
The court gave Taboada 60 days to withdraw the part challenging how his sentence was imposed; otherwise, that part would be treated as a motion under Section 2255. The court also separated the claims challenging how his sentence was being carried out and transferred them to the federal court in the District of New Jersey, where Taboada was incarcerated.
Judge Lewis J. Liman did not decide whether Taboada was entitled to have his convictions vacated or be resentenced to time served. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Taboada v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-08141
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Ricardo Taboada, who was incarcerated at a federal prison in New Jersey, filed a self-represented petition for a writ of audita querela. He challenged both the legality of the sentence imposed by the court and the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ execution of that sentence. He asked the court to vacate his convictions and resentence him to time served.
The court explained that audita querela is available only in limited circumstances and that Taboada had not alleged that relief under another post-conviction remedy was unavailable. The court therefore construed the petition according to the substance of the claims rather than the label Taboada used.
Section 2255 Claims
The court treated the claims challenging the imposition of Taboada’s federal sentence as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because recharacterizing a filing as a first Section 2255 motion can affect the restrictions on later or successive motions, the court gave Taboada notice and an opportunity to withdraw that portion of the petition.
The court granted Taboada leave to withdraw the Section 2255 motion by notifying the court in writing within 60 days. If he does not do so, the court will designate the portion challenging the imposition of his sentence as a Section 2255 motion. The court did not adjudicate the merits of those claims.
Section 2241 Claims and Transfer
The court treated the claims challenging the execution of Taboada’s sentence as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which is a procedure for challenging the manner or fact of custody. A court generally must have jurisdiction over the prisoner’s custodian to consider such a petition. Because Taboada was incarcerated in New Jersey, the court concluded that the federal court for the District of New Jersey was the proper court to consider these claims.
The court severed the Section 2241 claims under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and transferred them under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey as a separate Section 2241 petition. The transferee court was left to decide whether Taboada could proceed without paying filing fees and whether he should receive another opportunity to withdraw the Section 2241 petition.
Disposition
In Taboada v. United States, Judge Lewis J. Liman construed the filing in part as a Section 2255 motion and in part as a Section 2241 petition. The court granted leave to withdraw the Section 2255 motion, severed the Section 2241 claims, and transferred those claims to the District of New Jersey. The order did not decide the underlying challenges to Taboada’s sentence or its execution.
The court stated that Taboada had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.