Qazi v. United States of America
Filing
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT IN § 2255 PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 60(b)(6), denying 23 Motion for Rule 60. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 6/2/2022. See attached document for full details. (mee)
Case 0:16-cv-61177-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2022 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-cv-61177-BLOOM
RAEES ALAM QAZI,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
______________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT IN § 2255
PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 60(b)(6)
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Movant Raees Alam Qazi’s (“Qazi” or “Movant”)
Motion for Relief from Final Judgment in § 2255 Proceeding Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
60(b)(6) (“Motion”), ECF No. [23]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, the
applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history in this case.
Most recently, Qazi filed a motion entitled Actual Innocence Motion Filed to Reverse His
Conviction Under Counts Two and Six[], Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF No. [21] (“Actual
Innocence Motion”). Therein, Qazi argued that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel,
and he was actually innocent of certain charges. See generally id. In the Court’s Order of May 10,
2022, the Court deemed Qazi’s Action Innocence Motion to be a successive § 2255 motion. ECF
No. [22] at 3. Because Qazi had not obtained an order from the Eleventh Circuit authorizing him
to file a successive § 2255 motion, the Court denied his motion for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 2-3.
Qazi’s present Rule 60(b) Motion argues that the Court’s determination was erroneous
because the new claim within his Actual Innocence Motion “did not ripen until after the conclusion
Case 0:16-cv-61177-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2022 Page 2 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-61177-BLOOM
of his previous petition.” ECF No. [23] at 3.1 Qazi’s new claim is that the decisions of Sessions v.
Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), and United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), render two of
his convictions unconstitutional. ECF No. [23] at 2. Qazi contends that he is therefore entitled to
relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
Pursuant to Rule 60, the Court may grant relief from a judgment or order upon several
bases, including for example “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; newly
discovered evidence . . . or any other reason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (2),
(6). “Rule 60(b)(6) motions must demonstrate that the circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary
to warrant relief.” Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc., 741 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir.
2014) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “It is well established, . . . that relief under Rule
60(b)(6) is an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances.” Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) (internal citation
and quotations omitted); see also Frederick v. Kirby Tankships, Inc., 205 F. 3d 1277, 1288 (11th
Cir. 2000) (“Federal courts grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6) only for extraordinary
circumstances.”). Whether to grant relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) is ultimately a matter of discretion.
Aldana, 741 F.3d at 1355 (citing Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal
citation and quotations omitted)).
Here, the circumstances are not sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief under Rule
60(b)(6). Qazi argues that his Actual Innocence Motion should not be deemed a successive § 2255
motion because his new claim was not ripe since Sessions and Davis were decided after his first
§ 2255 motion was denied. ECF No. [23] at 3.
Qazi is incorrect. As the Court determined in its Order of May 10, 2022, the Court lacks
1
In the Motion, Qazi does not address the other ground raised in the Second Motion—ineffective assistance
of appellate counsel—and therefore, the Court does not address it here.
2
Case 0:16-cv-61177-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2022 Page 3 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-61177-BLOOM
jurisdiction to decide whether Sessions or Davis contain “a new rule of constitutional law . . . that
was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2); see Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211,
1216 (2003) (“Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or
successive petition.”).
The three cases Qazi cites in his Motion are inapposite. Gonzalez v. Crosby held that a
motion should not be “treated as a successive habeas petition if it does not assert, or reassert, claims
of error in the movant’s state conviction.” 545 U.S. 524, 538 (2005). Here, by contrast, there is no
dispute that Qazi’s second § 2255 motion asserts a claim of error in his convictions. Panetti v.
Quarterman addressed the specific situation of a petitioner sentenced to death whose claim of
incompetency to be executed was not ripe when he filed his first habeas petition. 551 U.S. 930,
947 (2007). Qazi’s situation is in no way analogous. Lastly, in Stewart v. United States, a
petitioner’s second § 2255 motion was deemed not successive because it was based on a fact that
did not exist at the time of his first § 2255 motion, namely, that his state convictions had been
vacated. 646 F.3d 856, 865 (11th Cir. 2011). Qazi’s second § 2255 motion, by contrast, is based
solely on what he believes to be a change in the law. That is precisely the type of claim that this
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider, without prior authorization from the Court of Appeals. See 28
U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2); Farris, 333 F.3d at 1216.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [23], is
DENIED and no certificate of appealability shall issue. This case shall remain closed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on June 2, 2022.
________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
3
Case 0:16-cv-61177-BB Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2022 Page 4 of 4
Case No. 16-cv-61177-BLOOM
Counsel of record
Raees Alam Qazi, pro se
01223-104
Lee-USP
United States Penitentiary
Inmate Mail/Parcels
Post Office Box 305
Jonesville, VA 24263-0305
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?