Young v. United States

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: August 21, 2023
• Docket: 7:15-cv-03941
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Federal Defenders 52 Duane Street-10th Floor, New York, NY 1000 OF NEW YORK, INC. Tel: (212) 417-8700 Fax: (212) 571-039

Appeals Bureau David E. Patton Barry D. Leiwant Executive Director Attorney-in-Charge and Attorney-in-Chief August 9, 2023 BY ECF Honorable Cathy Seibel For the reasons stated by the Government in ECF No. 219, the motion to amet United States District Judge petition is denied, and the "Amended Petition," (ECF No. 217), as Petitioner Southern District of New York recognizes, (ECF No. 220), must be transferred to the Second Circuit pursuant 300 Quarropas Street U.S.C. 1631 as a second or successive petition. The Clerk of Court is respectt White Plains, NY 10601 directed to effectuate that transfer. SO ORDERED. Re: Davon Young v. United States J) TY a 8/21/23 No. 09-cr-274 / 15-ev-3941 dlhry bebeh CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J. Dear Judge Seibel: I represent Davon Young, and I write to reply to the government’s letter (“Gov’t Ltr.”) regarding the Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“Petition”) Young has filed based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 8. Ct. 2111 (2022). The government argues the Petition is procedurally improper because Young’s initial § 2255 petition has been adjudicated and the judgment against him has not been “vacated or set aside pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b).” Gov’t Ltr. at 3 (quoting Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008), and citing Negron v. United States, 394 F. App’x 788, 793 (2d Cir. 2010) (noting this rule in a § 2255 case)). See also Goldstein v. Hulihan, 2012 WL 1438251, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Where a “judgment stands, Petitioner may not amend unless a motion to alter or vacate the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or 60(b) is first granted.”) (Seibel, J.). As “Young’s Bruen petition is not a valid amended petition,” the government says, “it should be transferred to the Second Circuit as a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).” Gov’t Ltr. at 4. Young anticipated this Court’s deeming his Petition successive, see Petition at 5 n.4, and he consents to the “transfer [of] the petition” to the Second Circuit. Liriano v. United States, 95 F.3d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1996). Respectfully submitted, s/ Matthew B. Larsen ce: AUSA Derek Wikstrom Assistant Federal Defender