Summary
holding that a petitioner is not denied due process when a court declines to hold an evidentiary hearing after concluding that the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief
Summary of this case from Huber v. United StatesOpinion
09 Civ. 8985 (GBD)
02-06-2014
FREDDY ABAD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
:
Pro se Petitioner Freddy Abad seeks relief, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6), from this Court's final order denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Feb. 7, 2011 Order, ECF No. 15) ("Order"). (See July 17, 2013 Rule 60 Mot. at 3-4, ECF No. 25) ("Rule 60 Motion").) Petitioner sought habeas relief from his 2004 conviction on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. (See Order at 1.) This Court denied habeas relief as to Petitioner's prosecutorial misconduct claim because Petitioner failed to raise this claim on direct appeal and thus was procedurally barred from subsequently bringing the claim in his habeas petition. (Order at 3; see also Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622 (1998).) This Court denied habeas relief with respect to Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the Second Circuit heard and rejected this claim on direct appeal. (Order at 3.) Therefore, this Court was precluded under the mandate rule from reconsidering Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim during the habeas proceeding. See Yick Man Mui v. United States, 614 F.3d 50, 57 (2d Cir. 2010); Beras v. United States, No. 05-cv-2678, 2013 WL 1155415, at *13-*14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2013). This Court also determined that Petitioner's prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel claims were deficient on their merits. (Order at 6-8, 10-11.)
Petitioner contends that the Order denying his habeas petition is void under Rule 60(b)(4), and that relief is justified under Rule 60(b)(6), because he was denied due process when (1) the court did not hold an evidentiary hearing to develop facts outside of the record, and (2) the Court did not require the submission of affidavits from Petitioner's former lawyers, Jeremy Schneider and David Ruhnke, and the prosecutor on his underlying case. (Rule 60 Mot. at 4-8.) On November 5, 2013, the Government submitted a letter brief opposing the Rule 60 Motion ("Opposition"). Petitioner's Rule 60 Motion is DENIED.
Because Petitioner's habeas motion alleged no viable claims on its face, Petitioner was not denied due process when the Court denied his habeas petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing or requiring the submission of attorney affidavits during the habeas proceeding. Procedurally defaulted claims do not require an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Cruz v. United States, 101 F.3d 107, at *1 (2d Cir. 1996). Claims subject to the mandate rule may not be re-adjudicated by the lower court. Yick Man Mui, 614 F.3d at 57. Furthermore, a hearing to consider evidence outside of the record is not warranted when "the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). The facts as alleged by Petitioner in his habeas petition fail to state any viable claim for relief. Therefore, no further evidentiary inquiry was necessary prior to denial.
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Court's Order denying his habeas petition is void under Rule 12(b)(4) because the Court did not require submission of attorney affidavits or hold an evidentiary hearing. Nor do Petitioner's allegations constitute the "extraordinary circumstances" required for a 60(b)(6) challenge to his habeas proceeding under Harris v. United States. 367 F.3d 74, 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2004).
Conclusion
Petitioner's Rule 60 Motion is DENIED. Dated: February 6, 2014
New York, New York
SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
GEORGE B. DANIELS
United States District Judge