Datta v. USA
Plaintiff: Vikram Datta
Defendant: USA
Case Number: 1:2014cv08653
Filed: November 3, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Lewis A. Kaplan
Nature of Suit: Motions to Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2255
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 2, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 79 MEMO ENDORSED ORDER denying 78 Motion re: 78 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION & SOLICITATION OF THE RECORDS SUPPORTING JURISDICTION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROSECUTE THE PETITIONER & RULINGS OF THE HON. COURT. ENDORSEMENT: Vikram Datta, an apparentl y indefatigable pro se litigant, endlessly attacks his long since affirmed convictions for conspiracies to commit money laundering and to travel internationally in aid of racketeering. He now purports to move pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA)")-both in the long-since completed criminal case and in a now concluded civil docket assigned to a Section 2255 motion -"for clarification & solicitation of the records supporting jurisdiction of the government to prose cute the petitioner and ruling(s) of the honorable court." The application is DENIED. Among other reasons supporting this result that need not be stated here, are these: First, neither of the cases in which Datta has filed this purported acti on remain pending. If he wishes to file an action for relief under FOIA, he must commence a new civil action in an appropriate venue and, absent in forma pauperis relief, pay the requisite filing fee. Second, the clarification and records Datta p urports to seek would be from the court. A FOIA request, however, must be directed to an "agency" of the United States government. 5 U.S.C. § 552,passim. The statutory definition of"agency" specifically and explicitly excludes "the courts of the United States." Id § 551(1)(B). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 2/2/24) (yv)
October 2, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 74 ORDER denying 72 Motion re: 72 MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE. The motion for compassionate release is denied. First, movant has not demonstrated the exhaustion of his administrative remedies. Second, there has been no demonstratio n of extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Third, in all of the circumstances, including movant's repeated, frivolous attacks on his conviction, the Court, upon consideration of the 3553(a) factors, would deny compassionate release in the exercise of its discretion. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 10/2/2023) (ate)
August 4, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER terminating 68 Motion re: 68 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT., 70 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION FOR VIOLATION OLF CIVIL RIGHTSD. ; denying without prejudice 70 Motion re: 68 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION FOR PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT., 70 MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION FOR VIOLATION OLF CIVIL RIGHTSD. The Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them to raise the "strongest arguments that they suggest." Datta� 39;s request for the Court to permit him to "perform duties of a son, husband, and father" is interpreted liberally as a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). That motion is denied without prejud ice because Datta does not allege that he has exhausted his administrative remedies and, in any case, has provided no evidence of his daughter's medical condition nor does he make any allegation that he is the only caregiver available for his father, spouse, or daughter. The remainder of Datta's motion is transferred to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Liriano for substantially the same reasons set forth in this Court's order dated June 26, 2023. Although the last paragraph of Datta's motion seeks an evidentiary hearing regarding "Clarification for Jurisdiction; and Subject-matter jurisdiction Violation," "Clarification for Fourth Amendment; and Due Process Violations," "Clarification for C ivil Rights Violation," and "Clarification for Sentencing Fraud committed by the government," the application as a whole plainly challenges his sentence of imprisonment based on an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction and vio lations of his Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and due process rights. Thus, the pending motion is an application by a person in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons who claims a right to be released and other relief because the sentence of impr isonment was imposed in violation of, inter alia, his right to due process. Accordingly, it is a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion. Datta already has filed numerous 2255 motions, the first of which was denied on the merits and a certificate of appealabi lity was denied on April 24, 2015. Accordingly, this is a second or successive 2255 motion without regard to Datta's many subsequent collateral attacks. As this is a second or successive Section 2255 motion on which this Court may not act excep t with leave of the Court of Appeals, the Clerk shall transfer it to that Court in accordance with Liriano v. United States, 95 F.3d 119, 122-23 (2d Cir. 1996). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 8/4/23) (yv) Transmission to Appeals Clerk. Modified on 8/4/2023 (yv).
July 26, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 69 ORDER. This is a second or successive 2255 motion without even considering Datta's subsequent collateral attacks. As this is a second or successive Section 2255 motion on which this Court may not act except with leave of the Court of Appeals, the Clerk shall transfer it to that Court in accordance with Liriano v. United States, 95 F.3d 119, 122-23 (2d Cir. 1996). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 7/26/23) (yv) Transmission to Appeals Clerk.
January 25, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 66 ORDER. As this is a second or successive Section 2255 motion on which this Court may not act except with leave of the Court of Appeals, the Clerk shall transfer it to that Court in accordance with Liriano. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 1/25/22) (yv) Transmission to Appeals Clerk.
October 5, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 64 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on SECTION 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) MOTION TO CLARIFY AND PROVIDE THE HARD COPY OF THE COUNTS/INDICTMENT WITH CASE NUMBER IN WHICH IMPRISONMENT AND FORFEITURE ORDERS WERE IMPOSED IN SENTENCING ON VIKRAM DATTA ON 1/20/2012. denying 63 Motion re: 63 MOTION SECTION 5:552(a) MOTION TO CLARIFY AND PROVIDE THE HARD COPY OF THE COUNTS/INDICTMENT WITH CASE NUMBER IN WHICH IMPRISONMENT & FORFEITURE ORDERS WERE IMPOSED IN SENTENCING ON VIKRAM DATTA ON 1/20/12. ENDORSEMENT: As this Court wrote on 8/5/21, defendant may request copies of publicly available documents from the clerk upon payment of any required fees. The Court lacks jurisdiction to grant any relief under USC 552 for the captioned matters. Denied.. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 10/5/2021) (ks)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Datta v. USA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: USA
Represented By: Peter M. Skinner
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Vikram Datta
Represented By: George W Aristotelidis
Represented By: Philip Joseph Lynch
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?