Lopez v. United States
- Paul Crotty
- 1:16-cv-03342-PAC
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States v. Lopez, Judge Crotty dismissed Lopez’s successive sentence challenge after the appeals court denied authorization.
Amaury Lopez, Jr.; the order dismissed his second motion challenging his conviction and sentence and denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In United States v. Amaury Lopez, Jr., Lopez, representing himself, filed a second motion challenging his conviction and sentence under a federal law allowing prisoners to seek relief from federal convictions and sentences. The district court determined that the motion was a second or successive motion requiring authorization from the appeals court.
The district court transferred the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court denied permission to file the motion because Lopez had not made the required initial showing under the governing statute, which generally requires newly discovered evidence or a new constitutional rule that applies retroactively.
Judge Paul A. Crotty then dismissed the second motion. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-03342-PAC
- Paul Crotty
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Amaury Lopez, Jr. filed a second motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his federal conviction and sentence. The opinion describes the motion as filed without a lawyer. The district court had already determined that this was a second or successive motion, meaning that Lopez first needed authorization from the appropriate federal appeals court before the district court could consider it.
Prior appellate ruling
The district court transferred the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeals court denied Lopez permission to file the motion because he did not make the required initial showing under § 2255(h). The opinion states that this showing requires a motion based on newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The court dismissed Lopez’s second motion. It directed the clerk to mail him a copy of the order and close the relevant docket entry. The court also ruled that the motion did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Disposition
The Second Motion was dismissed. The order did not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.