Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 22, 2023

Brennerman v. United States

Judge
Richard Sullivan
Docket
1:23-cv-01624
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
26
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Brennerman v. United States, Judge Sullivan terminated a docketed submission because no motion for relief was pending and explained where successive habeas petitions must be filed.

Who this affects

Raheem J. Brennerman, whose submission was docketed and whose motion at Doc. No. 296 was terminated; the order did not grant the relief he sought.

What happened

In Brennerman v. United States, Raheem J. Brennerman, representing himself, submitted a letter seeking relief for alleged violations of his human, civil, and constitutional rights related to his criminal case.

The court said that no motion for relief was currently pending. It reminded Brennerman that it had previously denied his habeas petition and his request to reconsider that denial, and explained that any successive habeas petition must be directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Judge Richard J. Sullivan directed the Clerk of Court to docket the order and Brennerman’s submission, terminate the motion listed at Doc. No. 296, and mail Brennerman a copy. The order did not decide the merits of his new allegations.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brennerman v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-01624
Judge
Richard Sullivan
Date
May 22, 2023

Background

Raheem J. Brennerman, proceeding without a lawyer, submitted a letter dated May 11, 2023. He sought relief based on alleged violations of his human, civil, and constitutional rights in connection with his criminal case, No. 17-cr-337 (RJS). His submission challenged aspects of his bank-fraud conviction and sentence, including issues involving the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and evidence concerning an underwriting file.

Prior Proceedings Mentioned

The order stated that the court had denied Brennerman’s habeas petition on January 3, 2023, and denied his motion for reconsideration on January 25, 2023. The order did not revisit the merits of those earlier decisions.

Court’s Action

The court stated that there was no motion for relief currently pending. It advised Brennerman that successive habeas petitions must be directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3).

The Clerk of Court was directed to docket the order and attach Brennerman’s May 11 submission, terminate the motion at Doc. No. 296, and mail a copy of the order to Brennerman. The order did not grant or deny the requested substantive relief and did not decide whether Brennerman’s allegations were legally or factually correct.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court addressed the status and proper filing location of the submission rather than deciding the merits of Brennerman’s challenges. Judge Richard J. Sullivan, a circuit judge sitting by designation, signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 26-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.