Martin v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 10, 2021
Docket7:21-cv-03268
StatusUnknown

This text of Martin v. United States (Martin v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Martin v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

\ DOCUMENT □□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT tp RCTRONIC ALLY SEER | SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK \ . acah epee □ {ee LEM: 5) opel KAREEM MARTIN, sais cenemesge Movant, 21-CV-3268 (VB) 14-CR-0604-3 (VB) -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER TO AMEND Respondent. VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, United States District Judge: _ Kareem Martin, currently incarcerated at U.S.P. Big Sandy in Kentucky, pleaded guilty before this Court to two carjackings resulting in death, for which he was sentenced to prison terms totaling 40 years.' See United States v. Martin, ECF 7:14-CR-604-3, 215 (VB) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2019). Martin filed a notice of appeal on April 18, 2019 (ECF 7:14-CR-604-3, 216), but then voluntarily withdrew the appeal,” and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit closed the matter on February 11, 2020. See United States v. Martin, Nos. 19-897, 19-1066 (2d Cir. Feb. 20, 2020) (ECF 7:14-CR-604-3, 259). By letter dated April 4, 2021,? Martin requested an-extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to set forth an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Martin claims he

Martin is also serving a consecutive 7-year sentence imposed in United States v. Martin, ECF 1:14-CR-0546-2, 556 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2017). 2 Counsel for Martin signed the stipulation of withdrawal, to which Martin’s written authorization and instruction to voluntarily dismiss the appeal is attached. However, the reason for the withdrawal is not set forth in the stipulation or Martin’s authorization. See No. 19-1066, 86 (2d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020). 3 Under the prison mailbox rule, Martin’s letter is deemed filed as of the date of the letter. See Johnson v. Coombe, 156 F. Supp. 2d 273, 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“Although it is not clear when the prisoner? gave his petition to prison officials, absent evidence to the contrary, the Court assumes that the prisoner gave his petition to prison officials for mailing on the date he signed it.”) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).

rejected a favorable plea deal of “0 to 30 years” because his attorney did not clearly explain that the deal did not require Martin to cooperate with the government. Martin asserts that had he known about the offer, he would have accepted it. (ECF 7:14-CV-0604, 266, at 2-3). Martin alleges that he has been unable to file a Section 2255 motion before now because of prison transfers, periods of lockdown and punitive segregation, and other “disruptions” caused by the pandemic. (Jd. at 6.) Martin seeks appointment of counsel and states that he also intends to file a motion for compassionate release.’ (Id. at 3.) For the following reasons, the Court directs Martin to file an amended Section 2255 motion by no later than July 9, 2021. STANDARD OF REVIEW A prisoner in federal custody may bring a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking his conviction or sentence on the grounds that it violates the Constitution or United States law, was imposed without jurisdiction, exceeds the maximum penalty, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack. Under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, the Court has the authority to review and deny a Section 2255 motion before directing an answer “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief.” Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, Rule 4(b); see Acosta v. Nunez, 221 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them “to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations

4 To seek compassionate release, a defendant may file a motion in his criminal case under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). A district may reduce a defendant’s sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A) only if the defendant shows that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); see also United States v. Ebbers, 432 F. Supp. 3d 421, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (explaining that the defendant bears the burden of making this showing).

omitted) (emphasis in original); see Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is not exempt “from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Triestman, 470 F.3d at 477 (citing Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). DISCUSSION —

A. Motion for an extension of time In his letter, Martin asks for an extension of time to file a Section 2255 motion. District courts may grant a request for an extension of time to file a Section 2255 only if the moving party requests the extension upon or after filing an actual Section 2255 motion. Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 82-83 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2000). The Second Circuit has held that “a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider the timeliness of a § 2255 petition until a petition is actually filed [,]” because prior to an actual filing, “there is no case or controversy to be heard[.]” United States v. Leon, 203 F.3d 162, 164 (2d Cir, 2000) (per curiam). A motion for an extension of time may be construed as a Section 2255 motion if it contains substantive habeas grounds. See Green, 260 F.3d at 83, Here, the Court liberally construes Martin’s April 4, 2021, letter as a Section 2255 motion, and the letter has been docketed as such. The Court now grants Martin leave to file an amended motion under Section 2255 because he asserts a substantive habeas ground. The amended motion must “specify all the grounds for relief which are available to [Martin]. . . set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus specified.” Nelson v. United States., 380 F. Supp. 2d 100, 103-04 (N.D.N,Y. 2005). B. Timeliness A federal prisoner seeking relief under Section 2255 must generally file a motion within one year from the latest of four benchmark dates: (1) when the judgment of conviction becomes

final; (2) when a government-created impediment to making such a motion is removed; (3) when the right asserted is initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if it has been made retroactively available to cases on collateral review; or (4) when the facts supporting the claim(s) could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Here, Martin voluntarily withdrew his appeal on February 11, 2020, before it was adjudicated by the Second Circuit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Luis G. Leon
203 F.3d 162 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Johnson v. Coombe
156 F. Supp. 2d 273 (S.D. New York, 2001)
Zimmerman v. Burge
492 F. Supp. 2d 170 (E.D. New York, 2007)
German v. United States
209 F. Supp. 2d 288 (S.D. New York, 2002)
Nelson v. United States
380 F. Supp. 2d 100 (N.D. New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Martin v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-united-states-nysd-2021.