United States v. Sheehan
2:13-cr-00186
E.D.N.YJul 8, 2024Background
- Daniel Sheehan filed a motion to reopen his previously denied § 2255 petition in federal court, which the court characterized as a "second or successive" petition.
- The Court’s May 10, 2024 Order notified Sheehan it intended to transfer the petition to the Second Circuit unless he objected, in which case the motion would be denied.
- Sheehan objected to the transfer, and also moved for reconsideration of the May 10 Order and filed a recusal motion against the judge.
- Sheehan argued that his "retracted" 924(c) claim could be "reopened at any time," relying on United States v. Thai.
- The Court reviewed the arguments and found that Sheehan’s motions did not meet the standard for reconsideration, nor did he provide any new evidence or change in law.
- The Court ultimately denied all of Sheehan’s motions, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Issues
| Issue | Sheehan's Argument | Government's Argument (by Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to reopen is a second or successive § 2255 petition | Motions to reopen are not bars to successive review | Motion is a second or successive petition | Deemed successive; not permitted under Rule 60 |
| Whether reconsideration of May 10 Order is warranted | Relying on Thai, claim can be reopened any time | No new law or facts; Thai is distinguishable | Reconsideration denied; no basis for relief |
| Judicial recusal | Judge should recuse if reconsideration denied | Motion is meritless | Recusal motion denied |
| Transfer of petition to Second Circuit | Objects to transfer | If objected, motion should be denied | No transfer; motion denied as beyond Rule 60 |
Key Cases Cited
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (sets strict standard for reconsideration motions; must show court overlooked controlling decisions or material facts)
- Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2012) (motions for reconsideration not for relitigating old issues or presenting new theories)
- Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (standard for reconsideration includes change in controlling law, new evidence, or need to correct error)