Datta v. United States

Background

Vikram Datta, who remained in home confinement and was acting without a lawyer, filed two new applications. One was called a motion for clarification about the court’s jurisdiction to impose a preliminary order of forfeiture involving substitute assets. The other was called a motion for clarification about prosecutorial misconduct.

Although the applications were framed as requests for clarification, the court read them as challenging Datta’s criminal case and sentence. The forfeiture application alleged that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his trial, that the government falsified filings and evidence, and that the government withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of due process. The misconduct application challenged the government’s authority to arrest and prosecute him, the court’s authority to adjudicate his case, and his imprisonment based on alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and due process. Datta also repeated an argument that he had been tried under one indictment but sentenced under another; the court said it had rejected that argument in a January 25, 2022 order.

Court’s analysis

The court determined that the applications were brought by a person in custody who claimed a right to release and other relief because his sentence allegedly violated his rights. It therefore treated them as motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence in certain circumstances.

The court noted that Datta had already filed numerous § 2255 motions. His first such motion had been denied on the merits, and a certificate allowing an appeal had been denied on April 24, 2015. The court concluded that the current filings were second or successive § 2255 motions.

Ruling

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan stated that the district court could not act on a second or successive § 2255 motion unless the Court of Appeals first granted permission. The Clerk was ordered to transfer the filings to the Court of Appeals. The opinion did not decide the underlying allegations about jurisdiction, prosecutorial misconduct, evidence, or constitutional violations.

The opinion also noted that, before Datta filed these applications, the Court of Appeals had imposed a leave-to-file sanction because of his continued filing of allegedly frivolous or duplicative requests to file successive § 2255 motions. That sanction required the appellate clerk to refuse future requests concerning his 2012 conviction unless he first obtained permission from the court.