Villa v. Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-02918
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Guillermo Villa v. Julia Wolcott, Judge Rearden granted Villa a 60-day extension to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in his detention challenge.
Guillermo Villa received additional time to file objections to the report and recommendation; the underlying petition and the respondent’s position were not decided by this order.
What happened
In Guillermo Villa v. Julia Wolcott, Guillermo Villa, who was representing himself while incarcerated, asked for more time to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in his federal challenge to his state custody.
Villa requested a 60-day extension, citing prison law-library access limits, security issues, and delays in receiving a response. The court granted the requested extension, even though the request was filed after the objection deadline.
Judge Rearden’s order directed the clerk to terminate the extension motion and mail Villa a copy of the order. The order addressed only the timing of Villa’s objections and did not decide the underlying detention challenge.
The detailed version
- Villa v. Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility · No. 1:22-cv-02918
- Rearden
- Aug. 8, 2024
Background
Guillermo Villa filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his custody under a New York state judgment. The opinion states that he was convicted of second-degree murder and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and is serving prison sentences. The matter had been referred for a report and recommendation, and the parties were given 14 days to file written objections.
Villa, who was proceeding without a lawyer, requested a 60-day extension to object. He cited restrictions on access to the law library, prison security issues, and uncertainty about whether the court had received his earlier request. The request was filed more than one month after the objection deadline, although Villa stated that he had attempted to submit it about eight days after the deadline.
Ruling
The court granted Villa’s requested extension. In explaining the decision, the court relied on his self-represented status and his apparent attempt to submit the request shortly after the deadline. The clerk was directed to terminate the extension motion and mail Villa a copy of the order.
The order did not rule on the report and recommendation, Villa’s objections, or the merits of his § 2254 petition. It decided only the request for additional time.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns an extension of time for filing objections and does not decide the underlying habeas petition.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.