No. 23-1015

Norman Seabrook v. United States

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2024-03-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 28-usc-2255 habeas-corpus habeas-law ineffective-assistance judicial-recusal light-most-favorable notice-and-hearing procedural-due-process sixth-amendment sua-sponte sua-sponte-dismissal
Latest Conference: 2024-04-12
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Did the District Court's sua sponte denial
of Petitioner's habeas petition alleging
ineffectiveness of trial counsel filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 2255 violate habeas procedural law
when it dismissed the proceeding without prior
notice (and without a hearing) to the Petitioner,
where no opposition was filed, and by failing to
review the facts in the light most favorable to
Petitioner?

2. Was Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to
effective assistance of counsel to seek the trial
judge's recusal at his retrial after the District
Judge disclosed a close personal relationship
with a former employee of the hedge fund which
defrauded the municipal labor union which
Petitioner led denied?

3. Did the District Court err in denying Petitioner's
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 33 motion
without a hearing?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the District Court's sua sponte denial of Petitioner's habeas petition alleging ineffectiveness of trial counsel violate habeas procedural law?

Docket Entries

2024-04-15
Petition DENIED.
2024-03-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2024.
2024-03-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-03-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 15, 2024)

Attorneys

Norman Seabrook
Roger Bennet AdlerRoger Bennet Adler, P.C., Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent