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 publicly docket two submissions that lacked a clear request for relief.
Raheem J. Brennerman’s May 24 and June 5 submissions were not publicly docketed; the Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion and mail him the order.
What happened
In Brennerman v. United States, Raheem J. Brennerman asked the court to publicly docket submissions he had sent on May 24 and June 5, 2023. The court had previously declined to docket them because they did not make a clear request for relief.
The court explained that it was not required to respond to or publicly docket correspondence that did not seek recognizable relief. It also discussed the public’s and press’s rights to access court filings, but concluded that these submissions were not documents relevant to the court’s work. The court noted that copies would be kept under seal to support possible appellate review and to allow consideration of possible sanctions.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied the request to publicly docket the submissions. He directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion and mail Brennerman a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Brennerman v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-01624
- Richard Sullivan
- July 11, 2023
Background
Raheem J. Brennerman submitted a request dated June 19, 2023, asking the court to publicly docket submissions dated May 24 and June 5. The court characterized the request as a demand and referred to its earlier determination that the two submissions did not make a recognizable request for relief.
The opinion states that Brennerman’s criminal case was closed, his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, the Supreme Court denied his petition for review, his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied, his motion asking the court to reconsider that decision was denied, and he voluntarily withdrew his appeal from the reconsideration decision. The court stated that any successive request for relief under § 2255 would first require permission from the Second Circuit. It also stated that a request under another statute or under the Federal Rules of Criminal or Civil Procedure would need to be made clearly in a written submission through the court’s Pro Se Office.
Public docket and access
The court said it was not required to respond to or take action on submissions that did not make a recognizable request for relief, and it was not required to docket such correspondence. The court also addressed the public’s and press’s common-law and First Amendment access rights. It explained that those rights generally apply to “judicial documents”—documents relevant to the court’s function and useful in the judicial process. The court concluded that the May 24 and June 5 submissions did not meet that standard. It added that, even if they were judicial documents, access would still have to be balanced against competing concerns, including the risk of impairing judicial efficiency.
The court noted that copies of the submissions would be maintained under seal for possible appellate review and in case sanctions became necessary, including a possible filing restriction requiring Brennerman to obtain permission before submitting additional filings.
Ruling
Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied Brennerman’s request that the May 24 and June 5 submissions be publicly docketed. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Doc. No. 303 and mail Brennerman a copy of the order. The order addressed docketing and access to submissions; it did not decide the merits of a new claim for relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.