Pena v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 28, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-01266·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED:_ 2/28/2024 JOSE PENA, 24-CV-1266 (VM) Movant, 09-CR-0341-1 (VM) -against- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ORDER TO FILE AMENDED MOTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Respondent. VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge: Movant, who ts currently incarcerated at FCI Coleman, in Coleman, Florida, was convicted of offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924() (murder through use of a firearm during a crime of violence), and Section 1958 (use of interstate commerce in murder-for-hire, and conspiracy to use interstate commerce in murder-for-hire). On December 19, 2014, the Court sentenced Movant to concurrent life sentences, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction. See United States v. Pena, No. 15-0119-cr (2d Cir. June 20, 2016). On June 7, 2016, Movant filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or otherwise correct his conviction and sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and by decision and order dated June 27, 2016, the Court denied the motion. See Pena v. United States, No. 16-CV-4261 (VM) (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2016). Movant filed subsequent motions and appeals, and on June 22, 2020, the Second Circuit granted Movant permission to file a second and successive Section 2255 motion. See United States Pena, 20-144 (2d Cir. June 22, 2020). On July 6, 2020, the Court granted Movant’s motion in part, granting his motion to vacate his convictions on counts seven and eight, (ECF No. 438), and the Court filed an amended judgment on the same date, (ECF No. 439). Movant filed a notice of appeal on December 18, 2020, and on March 13, 2023, the amended judgment was affirmed. (ECF No. 467.)

Movant subsequently filed a motion seeking permission to file a second and successive Section 2255 motion, and by order dated January 8, 2024, the Second Circuit denied the motion as unnecessary because Movant had not filed a prior Section 2255 motion challenging the amended judgment. See United States v. Pena, No. 23-7758 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2024). The Second Circuit therefore directed Movant to present the district court with the Section 2255 claims challenging the amended judgment. Id. On February 12, 2024, Movant filed a document titled, “Notice of Appeal,” notifying the

Court of his intention to file a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and requesting that the court send Movant the appropriate forms and a copy of the Local Rule and the Rules Governing Section 2255 cases, and the Clerk of Court opened this submission as a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and assigned the above referenced docket number, 24-CV-1266, to this action. For the following reasons, the Court directs (1) the Clerk of Court to send Movant the instructions and forms for filing an Amended Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and (2) Movant to file an amended Section 2255 motion within sixty days of the date of this order. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, the Court has the authority to review and deny a § 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 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 movant who files an application to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence must submit a

motion that conforms to the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases. Rule 2(b) requires a motion to specify all of a movant’s available grounds for relief, setting forth the facts supporting each of the specified grounds and stating the relief requested. A motion must permit the Court and Respondent to comprehend both the movant’s grounds for relief and the underlying facts and legal theory supporting each ground so that the issues presented in the motion may be adjudicated.1 Here, Movant’s submission, wherein he requests the forms to file a Section 2255 motion, which was opened as a Section 2255 motion, does not provide the grounds for relief and the facts supporting his grounds for relief. Moreover, Movant does not state the relief that he is requesting. The submission therefore fails to comply with Rule 2(b). Because Movant has only one opportunity to bring a Section 2255 motion asserting all of the

grounds on which he seeks relief from the amended judgment, the Court grants Movant an opportunity to file an amended Section 2255 motion. In the amended Section 2255 motion, Movant must provide the grounds for relief and the facts supporting his grounds, so that the issues can be adjudicated.

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

Pena v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pena v. United States (Pena v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related