Mata v. United States
- Victor Marrero
- 1:23-cv-04993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mata v. United States, Judge Marrero transferred Mata’s second post-conviction motion to the Second Circuit because appellate permission was required.
Jose Luis Mata, whose second § 2255 motion was transferred to the Second Circuit for authorization; the United States was the respondent.
What happened
Jose Luis Mata, who was incarcerated, filed a self-represented motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his conviction in Mata v. United States. The court found that he had previously filed a § 2255 motion concerning the same conviction and that the earlier motion had been decided on its merits.
Because the new motion was a second or successive motion, Mata needed permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit before pursuing it in the district court. The district court transferred the motion to that appeals court, closed the case, and stated that Mata could ask to reopen it if the appeals court authorized him to proceed.
Judge Victor Marrero also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Mata v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-04993
- Victor Marrero
- July 6, 2023
Background
Jose Luis Mata filed a self-represented motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The motion challenged the judgment entered in his criminal case. The opinion states that Mata was incarcerated at FCI Gilmer in Glenville, West Virginia.
The court’s records showed that Mata had filed an earlier § 2255 motion challenging the same conviction. That earlier motion had been decided on the merits. The district court therefore treated the new filing as a second or “successive” § 2255 motion.
Court’s reasoning
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a second or successive § 2255 motion generally requires authorization from the appropriate federal appeals court before it may be filed in the district court. The opinion states that such authorization must come from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It also notes that authorization requires a showing based on newly discovered evidence or a new constitutional rule made retroactive by the Supreme Court.
Disposition
The court transferred Mata’s § 2255 motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The order closed the district-court case but stated that Mata could move to reopen it under the same civil docket number if the appeals court authorized him to proceed.
The court also stated 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. It further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge Victor Marrero signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.