Bey v. United States
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-11281
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bey v. United States, Judge Liman administratively closed the case after denying an extension to file a sentence challenge.
Moorishyu Bey's request for more time to file a Section 2255 sentence challenge was denied, and the related civil case was administratively closed. The order did not resolve the merits of any sentence challenge.
What happened
In Bey v. United States, Moorishyu Bey, who was incarcerated and represented himself, asked for more time to file a motion challenging his federal sentence under Section 2255, a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge certain sentences.
The court had already denied the extension because the filing deadline generally runs for one year after the criminal judgment becomes final, and the court said it lacked authority to extend that time before an actual motion was filed. The clerk was directed to send Bey a Section 2255 form and instructions and to administratively close this case.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee because Bey had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The order did not decide the merits of any Section 2255 claim.
The detailed version
- Bey v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-11281
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 4, 2024
Background
Moorishyu Bey, who was incarcerated at F.C.I. Otisville and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion asking for an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He sought to challenge the legality of the sentence imposed in his criminal case, United States v. Bey, No. 22-cr-132-1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2023). He also included a letter asking for a Section 2255 packet.
Prior ruling and timing
In a memorandum endorsement dated December 27, 2023, the court denied the motion for an extension. The court explained that Section 2255 permits a prisoner to challenge a sentence within one year after the criminal judgment becomes final, and that the court lacked authority to extend that period. The opinion states that Bey did not appeal, so his conviction became final on February 2, 2023.
The opinion also explains that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to assess the timeliness of a Section 2255 petition before such a petition is actually filed. The court therefore did not decide whether any future Section 2255 claims would be timely or valid.
Disposition
The clerk had opened Bey’s extension request as a new civil action. The court directed the clerk to mail Bey a Section 2255 motion form with instructions and to administratively close the case. The order is titled an order of dismissal, but it does not state that the case was dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice.
The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Bey had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order on January 4, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.