Spiegelman v. United States

Background

Joel Spigelman, proceeding without a lawyer, filed two motions. First, he asked the court under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate the earlier denial of his petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a statute allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. Second, he renewed his request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), commonly called compassionate release.

The court had previously denied requests for a sentence reduction in December 2020 and December 2021. Spigelman had served approximately 18 years of a life sentence imposed by Judge Scheindlin. He was 70 years old and had several health conditions. The record indicated that he appeared to be receiving appropriate treatment at the Federal Medical Facility at Rochester, Minnesota. He had also asked the warden for early release, and the request was denied on March 31, 2023, satisfying the statute’s exhaustion requirement.

Rule 60(b) motion

The court denied Spigelman’s request to vacate the prior denial of his § 2255 petitions for several reasons. It held that the motion was untimely. A Rule 60(b) motion based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct must be filed within one year after judgment, while a motion under Rule 60(b)(6), which covers other reasons, must be filed within a reasonable time. The court stated that courts in the circuit generally interpret that period as 18 months absent good cause. Spigelman filed this motion more than ten years after Judge Scheindlin denied his first § 2255 motion and more than three years after the Second Circuit dismissed his appeal.

The court also held that the only identifiable claim in the filing—that government witnesses lied at trial and that Spigelman did not order the murder—was not a claim that could be pursued through a Rule 60(b) motion. To the extent Spigelman was again challenging his conviction, the court found that he had not made the showing required to file another, or successive, § 2255 petition. The court relied on the Second Circuit’s recent order denying his fourth request for permission to file such a petition.

Sentence-reduction motion

Section 3582(c)(1)(A) permits a court to reduce a prison term when extraordinary and compelling reasons support a reduction, the reduction is consistent with applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements, and the relevant sentencing factors support it. The court acknowledged that Spigelman’s age and medical conditions could be relevant circumstances, but it held that a reduction was not warranted under the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

In particular, the court relied on the seriousness of the premeditated murder and concluded that releasing Spigelman would not adequately serve the statutory purposes of punishment, recognizing the seriousness of the offense, promoting respect for the law, and deterring criminal conduct.

Disposition

The court denied both Spigelman’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b) and his motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A). It directed the Clerk of Court to docket the order in Case Numbers 05-CR-960 and 10-CV-7588, close the specified motions, and mail a copy of the order to Spigelman.