Garcia Pena v. United States
- George Daniels
- 1:21-cv-07882
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Garcia Pena v. United States, Judge Daniels denied Pedro Garcia Pena’s motion to vacate his conviction because he was not legally “in custody” when he filed it.
Pedro Garcia Pena’s challenge to his federal firearm conviction and five-year sentence was denied; the United States prevailed on the jurisdictional issue.
What happened
Garcia Pena v. United States concerned Pedro Garcia Pena’s request to undo his firearm conviction and five-year sentence under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge their convictions.
When Garcia Pena filed the request, he had finished serving the sentence imposed by the court and was being held in immigration detention. The government argued that this meant the court lacked authority to consider his request.
Judge George B. Daniels ruled that Garcia Pena was not legally “in custody” for this type of challenge when he filed it. The court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction and directed the clerk to close the motion and the related cases.
The detailed version
- Garcia Pena v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-07882
- George Daniels
- May 11, 2023
Background
On September 23, 2020, the court sentenced Pedro Garcia Pena to five years in prison for possessing a firearm in connection with an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Garcia Pena later filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to seek cancellation of a conviction or sentence.
Jurisdictional issue
The government opposed the motion, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction—the legal authority to decide the matter—because Garcia Pena did not meet § 2255’s “in custody” requirement when he filed the motion. The opinion states that Garcia Pena had completed his sentence and was being held in immigration detention at the Clinton County Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania. He had been transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on or about July 30, 2021, and filed his motion on September 15, 2021.
The court explained that a person must be “in custody” when filing a § 2255 motion. Once a sentence has completely expired, the remaining consequences of the conviction generally do not satisfy that requirement. The court further relied on the rule that immigration detention or a final removal order resulting from a criminal conviction does not count as custody for purposes of § 2255.
Ruling
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Garcia Pena was not “in custody” for purposes of § 2255 when he filed his motion. The court therefore denied Garcia Pena’s § 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction. It directed the clerk to close the motion at ECF No. 84, civil case No. 21 Civ. 7882, and the corresponding motion at ECF No. 5.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.