United States v. Amin Rashid
20-1348
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 2, 2021Background
- Rashid was convicted in 1993 of fraud, sentenced to 168 months, and ordered to pay restitution; his direct appeal and an initial 1995 §2255 motion were unsuccessful.
- Over decades Rashid repeatedly filed collateral attacks and Rule 60(b) motions challenging the §2255 proceedings; the courts repeatedly denied relief.
- In 2013 the district court entered a filing injunction requiring leave to file motions related to the 1993 case and certain certifications; Rashid did not appeal that injunction.
- The district court later imposed monetary sanctions for repetitive filings and, in December 2019, denied Rashid permission to file another Rule 60(b) motion and directed him to show cause for a $200 sanction (appeal docketed as C.A. No. 20-1348).
- On April 6, 2020 the district court imposed the $200 sanction, vacated the 2013 injunction, and issued a materially more onerous new filing injunction that would return frivolous or previously denied filings and impose escalating sanctions (appeal docketed as C.A. No. 20-2224).
- The appeals were consolidated. The Third Circuit denied a COA for the Rule 60(b) challenge portion, affirmed other non-COA parts, vacated the new injunction for lack of notice, and remanded for a show-cause procedure before imposing a more onerous injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rashid is entitled to a COA to appeal denial of leave to file a serial Rule 60(b) attack on his §2255 proceedings | Rashid sought leave to file another Rule 60(b) motion challenging the §2255 resolution | Government argued the Rule 60(b) filing was repetitive and meritless; COA required | COA denied — reasonable jurists would not debate denial; that part of the order is not appealable without COA and is rejected |
| Whether the district court could replace the 2013 filing injunction with a more onerous one without giving Rashid notice and an opportunity to respond | Rashid argued the replacement injunction was imposed without adequate notice or a show-cause opportunity | Government argued the new order was not a material expansion of the 2013 injunction and notice was unnecessary | Vacated the new injunction because it was materially more onerous; remanded with instructions to give notice and a chance to show cause before replacing the injunction |
| Validity of the $200 monetary sanction imposed April 6, 2020 | Rashid challenged the sanction (but did not meaningfully brief it on appeal) | Government supported sanction as response to repetitive, meritless filings | District Court’s imposition of the $200 sanction was affirmed (Rashid forfeited meaningful challenge) |
| Whether the alleged judicial bias requires reassignment on remand | Rashid alleged the judge was biased against him | Government disputed bias and defended the court’s conduct | Allegation rejected; no reassignment warranted on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Bracey v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 986 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2021) (COA requirement for certain appeals of habeas-related orders)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (COA standards where appellate review of habeas rulings is required)
- Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009) (COA not required for appeals of certain collateral matters)
- Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1993) (procedural requirements and standards for issuing filing injunctions)
- Baum v. Blue Moon Ventures, LLC, 513 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2008) (district court should give notice before modifying an existing injunction)
- Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2002) (notice requirement before altering injunctions)
- Gagliardi v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1987) (vacating filing injunction and remanding with directions to give notice to the litigant)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (appeal-period filing rules are jurisdictional)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (timeliness of appeals and jurisdictional requirements)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prison mailbox rule for timely filing of notices of appeal)
- Geness v. Cox, 902 F.3d 344 (3d Cir. 2018) (forfeiture for inadequately briefed appellate issues)