Savoca v. United States
199 F. Supp. 3d 716
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Lawrence Savoca was convicted in 2004 of robbery conspiracy/attempt, a §924(c) firearm count, and being a felon in possession under ACCA; he filed a §2255 motion in 2007.
- Parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction and the district judge referred the consolidated §2255 matters to Magistrate Judge Lisa Smith in January 2011.
- Magistrate Judge Smith denied Savoca’s §2255 motion by Decision and Order dated August 8, 2013; the Second Circuit affirmed on appeal in May 2014.
- In December 2014 Savoca (pro se) moved to withdraw his consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction, arguing the consent was invalid and that it was unconstitutional for a magistrate to enter final judgment on a §2255 motion.
- Magistrate Judge Smith issued a Report and Recommendation (July 15, 2016) recommending denial of the motion as untimely and because Savoca’s consent was knowing and voluntary; the district court adopted that Report and denied the motion, closing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §636(c) over a §2255 motion is constitutional | Savoca argued it is unconstitutional for a magistrate to issue final judgment on a §2255 motion | Government (and court) argued §636(c) is constitutional when parties knowingly consent; supervisory review and appellate review preserve Article III structure | Magistrate jurisdiction over §2255 motions is constitutional where consent is knowing and voluntary; Savoca’s constitutional challenge fails |
| Whether Savoca’s consent was knowing and voluntary | Savoca claimed he did not understand that the magistrate’s findings could become final without district-judge review | Court pointed to a signed stipulation expressly consenting to magistrate entry of final judgment and multiple notices on the docket | Consent was knowing and voluntary; Savoca’s withdrawal claim denied |
| Whether errors in the magistrate’s August 8, 2013 decision justify vacating the reference | Savoca argued the magistrate’s legal analysis was erroneous and sought vacatur to obtain district-judge review | Court: errors (if any) are not a basis to vacate consent; proper remedy is appeal | Errors (claimed) do not meet the high “extraordinary circumstances” standard; vacatur denied |
| Whether Savoca met the statutory standard to withdraw consent (extraordinary circumstances / good cause) | Savoca sought vacatur citing unconstitutionality, error, and lack of understanding | Court applied high standard; considered timeliness, pro se status, voluntariness, prejudice, and good faith; found motion untimely and not in good faith | Savoca failed to show extraordinary circumstances or good cause; motion to withdraw consent denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (procedural standard for review of magistrate reports) (establishing that unobjected portions may be adopted absent clear error)
- Collins v. Foreman, 729 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1984) (upholding constitutionality of §636(c) referrals and treating magistrates as adjuncts to the district court)
- Johnston v. United States, 258 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding §636(c) referral unconstitutional as applied to §2255 motions — relied on by Savoca but not followed here)
- Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (parties may waive Article III adjudicator right by knowing and voluntary consent)
- Carter v. Sea Land Servs., Inc., 816 F.2d 1018 (5th Cir. 1987) (factors for assessing whether to vacate a magistrate referral)
- Schor, Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v., 478 U.S. 833 (1986) (Article III personal-rights/structural analysis relevant to waiver of Article III adjudicator)