Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 4:93cr4028-WS

KARIM SHAREEF MATEEN, 

a/k/a REGINALD MARCEL DENNIS,

Defendant.

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Defendant filed a pro se request for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §

2201. Doc. 1025. 

Section 2201 provides:

In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction . . . any court of the

United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the

rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such

declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such

declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree

and shall be reviewable as such. 

Defendant Mateen seeks a "declaratory judgment preparatory to bringing judicial

action before the Court," and claims to make his request "in the interest of judicial

economy," and "so he may file an intelligent and informative pleading in compliance
Page 2 of 4

1

 Chapter 154, which revises the procedural rules (such as the time limit for filing)

for habeas proceedings capital cases, applies only where a state qualifies by meeting

certain conditions. Id., at 742-743, 118 S.Ct. at 1696. 

Case No. 4:93cr4028-WS

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Motion Practice." Doc. 1025, p. 1 and 2. The

declarations sought from the court are of various legal propositions, for example a

declaration "that although an accused loses many of his Constitutional rights upon

conviction of a felony offense, his or her First Amendment right to redress the

government for grievances is not one of those rights," and "that 'actual innocence' if

proven, must give way to rituals and rules impeding the interest of justice." Id., pp. 1, 2. 

A declaratory judgment is not available for this purpose. Calderon v. Ashmus,

523 U.S. 740, 745-749, 118 S.Ct. 1694, 1697-1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 970 (1998), discussing

Coffman v. Breeze Corp., 323 U.S. 316, 65 S.Ct. 298, 89 L.Ed.2d 264 (1945) (other

citations omitted). In Calderon, declaratory judgment was sought to determine whether

Chapter 153 or 154 of Title 28, U.S.C. (governing habeas corpus and habeas corpus in

capital cases, respectively) would apply to death row inmates in California.1 Rather

than filing a habeas corpus petition, which would have resolved the issue, the inmate

"seeks to have that question determined in anticipation of seeking habeas so that he will

be better able to know, for example, the time limits that govern the habeas action." Id.,

at 746, 118 S.Ct. at 1698. 

The Court said that such a suit: 

attempts to gain a litigation advantage by obtaining an advance ruling on

an affirmative defense. The "case or controversy" actually at stake is the

class members' claims in their individual proceedings. Any judgment in

this action thus would not resolve the entire case or controversy as to any

one of them, but would merely determine a collateral legal issue governing
Page 3 of 4

2

 There Defendant demanded the grand jury concurrence form, but (as the court

found with respect to the grand jury transcript) had not demonstrated a particularized

need for grand jury materials. "Even if he could allege a possible error which the grand

jury materials would support . . . he may not seek relief from the judgment and sentence

at this time," because his any relief would be under § 2255, and he had not obtained

authorization for filing a second or successive motion. Doc. 1016, pp. 2-3. 

Case No. 4:93cr4028-WS

certain aspects of their pending or future suits.

Id., at 747, 118 S.Ct. at 1698-99 (citations omitted). The Court noted "[t]he disruptive

effects of an action such as this are peculiarly great when the underlying claim must be

adjudicated in a federal habeas proceeding." Id., 118 S.Ct. at 1699. 

Here, there is even less of an arguable case or controversy as there is no

argument as to how the declarations sought would have any application to this

Defendant. Any argument going to his judgment of conviction would be brought under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 but, as Defendant has been advised, he may not file a second or

successive § 2255 motion without first obtaining authorization from the Eleventh Circuit.

Docs. 1016, 1019 and 1020 (report and recommendation as adopted by the court, and

judgment entered on the docket April 17, 2009).2

Even if the declarations sought by Defendant were not necessarily relevant only

to a possible § 2255 motion, declaratory relief is not available to determine collateral

legal issues which would "have no coercive impact on the legal rights or obligations of

either party," but instead "would simply carve out" an issue or multiple issues "for

separate adjudication." Id., at 749, 118 S.Ct. at 1699-1700 (citation omitted); see also

Prier v. Steed, 456 F.3d 1209, 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Calderon, in action under
Page 4 of 4

3

 In Prier, the underlyng controversy was whether a county employee had been

illegally terminated, but plaintiff dismissed that claim and "[a]ll that remains is a claim for

a declaratory judgment with respect to a collateral legal issue, whether Steed's

affirmative defense to Prier's claim under the FMLA was valid." 456 F.3d at 1213. 

"Resolution of this issue will have no coercive effect on the legal rights or obligations of

either party," and a declaratory judgment in plaintiff's favor "would amount to nothing

more than a declaration that she was wronged." Id., at 1214 (citation and internal

brackets omitted). 

Case No. 4:93cr4028-WS

the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)).3

It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant's request for

declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, doc. 1025, be SUMMARILY DENIED.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on July 10, 2009.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10

days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections

limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.