Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 21, 2024

Jackson v. Capra

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:22-cv-03357
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jackson v. Capra, Magistrate Judge Netburn ordered a status update on Jackson’s state-court motion during a stay.

Who this affects

Raphael Jackson and Michael Capra; the parties must provide the ordered status update.

What happened

Jackson v. Capra concerns Raphael Jackson’s request for a stay related to a motion he filed under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10. The request relied on Erlinger v. United States.

On September 24, 2024, the court granted Jackson a stay so he could pursue possible claims related to Erlinger in state court. The court also allowed him to amend his petition to add those claims if the state court rejected them.

The court ordered both sides to file a letter by December 2, 2024, updating the court on the status of Jackson’s state-court motion. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn signed the November 21, 2024, order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jackson v. Capra · No. 1:22-cv-03357
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Nov. 21, 2024

Background

Raphael Jackson requested a stay of these proceedings on September 17, 2024, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840 (2024). He attached a copy of a motion filed under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 on August 14, 2024.

Prior Order

On September 24, 2024, the court granted Jackson a stay to allow him to pursue any potential claims related to Erlinger in state court. The court also granted Jackson permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to amend his petition to add those claims if the state court rejected them.

Ruling

The November 21, 2024, order requires the parties to file a letter by December 2, 2024, updating the court on the status of Jackson’s § 440.10 motion. The order does not decide the potential Erlinger-related claims or the merits of Jackson’s petition. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.