Brennerman v. United States
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:23-cv-01624
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brennerman v. United States, Judge Sullivan denied Brennerman’s request to reconsider the earlier denial of his challenges to his convictions and sentence.
Raheem J. Brennerman’s motion for reconsideration was denied; the court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and barred him from proceeding on appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Brennerman v. United States concerns Raheem J. Brennerman’s request to reconsider an earlier order. Brennerman, who was incarcerated and representing himself, had asked the court to cancel his convictions and sentence, recuse itself from future proceedings, and return personal items he said the government possessed.
The court explained that reconsideration is available only for an important change in law, new evidence, a clear error, or a serious injustice. It found that Brennerman was trying to repeat arguments about his lawyer, the appeals court’s decisions, and alleged misconduct rather than meeting that strict standard.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied the motion for reconsideration. He also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal of the denial of Brennerman’s federal petition challenging his conviction and sentence, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Brennerman could not appeal without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- Brennerman v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-01624
- Richard Sullivan
- Feb. 27, 2023
Background
The court had previously denied Raheem J. Brennerman’s omnibus motion. That motion sought three forms of relief: vacatur, meaning cancellation, of his convictions and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; the court’s recusal from further proceedings; and the return of personal items allegedly possessed by the government. Brennerman, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion asking the court to reconsider that earlier decision.
Reconsideration standard
The court treated the portion concerning the § 2255 ruling as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), because it was filed within the applicable period. For the non-habeas requests in the criminal case, the court applied Local Criminal Rule 49.1(d). Under both standards, reconsideration is available only if the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. The court emphasized that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues or obtain a second hearing on the merits.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Brennerman had not shown a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. Instead, it determined that he was repeating issues from his earlier motion, including arguments about ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges to decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also found that his broad allegations of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct were speculative, conjectural, and conclusory, and therefore insufficient under either reconsideration standard.
Ruling and additional orders
Judge Richard J. Sullivan ordered that Brennerman’s motion for reconsideration be DENIED. The court further declined to issue a certificate of appealability concerning reconsideration of the denial of his § 2255 petition because Brennerman had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that any appeal would lack an arguable basis in law or fact and that Brennerman therefore could not proceed without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and mail Brennerman a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.