Vincent John Basciano v. United States

This case raises several issues of significant national importance. While the Due Process Clause guarantees defendants the right of access to the courts and fair proceedings irrespective of the crimes for which they stand convicted, this case makes unclear to what extent the law protects against undue burdens imposed on inmates and tolerates judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. The duty of appellate courts to maintain and enforce standards for fair adjudicative proceedings, by curtailing improper conduct of judges and prosecutors, is indispensable to our justice system so that the integrity of the judiciary may be preserved. However, the appellate court in Mr. Basciano’s case did not achieve this end. The questions presented are as follows:

1. Whether the Second Circuit imposed an improper burden on inmates when it upheld the habeas judge’s decision not to extend the prison mailbox rule to Petitioner’s motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), on the basis that the law remains “unclear whether the prison mailbox extends to Rule 59 motions,” thereby putting the burden on Petitioner, who delivered his motion to prison officials seven days before the filing deadline, to ensure timely delivery to the clerk of the court through a prison mail system over which he cannot exert control?

2. Whether the Second Circuit erred in requiring Petitioner to obtain a Certificate of Appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) to appeal from an order denying his motion to recuse the presiding habeas judge, and, if a COA is required, does that create an