United States v. Chin

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 7, 2025
• Docket: Criminal No. 2008-0124
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

WEI CHIN,

Petitioner, Criminal Action No. 8-124 (JMC)

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Wei Chin files a motion to compel production of exculpatory evidence pursuant

to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), challenging the judgment of conviction entered in

United States v. Chin, Case No. 08-cr-124. ECF 95. The Court construes this motion as a petition

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255—Chin’s fourth such petition—and DISMISSES

it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In 2008, Chin pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). ECF 10. A year later, Chin

petitioned for habeas relief under § 2255, seeking to have his sentence vacated or set aside. ECF 29

at 13. The Court (Kennedy, J.) denied that petition. ECF 68. In 2022, Chin filed another habeas

petition under § 2255. ECF 79; ECF 81. The Court (Cobb, J.) again denied the petition, explaining

that parties who want to file a second or successive habeas petition in a district court must move

the court of appeals to authorize the district court to consider the petition. ECF 82 (citing 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b)(3)(A)); ECF 83. Without such authorization, this Court explained, the district court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the habeas petition. ECF 82 (citing Burton v. Stewart,

549 U.S. 147, 149 (2007)).

1 In 2023, Chin filed his third habeas petition. ECF 85. The Court again denied the petition

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Chin did not move the court of appeals to authorize

the district court to consider the petition. ECF 86; ECF 87. Chin appealed that decision to the D.C.

Circuit. ECF 89; see Case No. 23-3135. The D.C. Circuit, on its own motion, referred the case to

the district court to determine in the first instance whether a certificate of appealability was

warranted. ECF 91. The district court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. ECF 92. The

Circuit affirmed, and simultaneously denied Chin’s subsequent motion(s) to recuse, to change

venue, and for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. ECF 94.

Chin now files a “motion to compel production of exculpatory evidence,” arguing that the

government withheld material evidence in his 2008 criminal case in violation of Brady. ECF 95

at 2. He requests various relief, including that the Court vacate his conviction. Id. at 10. The Court

therefore construes this motion as Chin’s fourth habeas petition under § 2255. But, once again,

Chin did not move the court of appeals to allow him to file this petition. Because Chin has filed a

second or successive habeas petition without obtaining the appropriate authorization from the court

of appeals, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this petition. Chin’s petition is thus

dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

__________________________ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge

Date: April 7, 2025