Thomas v. United States
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-10083
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Thomas v. United States, Judge Furman denied relief based on a late opposition, terminated Thomas’s new motion, and denied appeal-related requests.
Isaiah Thomas, who was representing himself in proceedings concerning his sentence, and the United States as the opposing party.
What happened
In Thomas v. United States, Isaiah Thomas, who was representing himself, had already asked to reduce his sentence and to set it aside. The court had ordered the government to file one response to both requests by January 23, 2025, and Thomas to file one reply by February 13, 2025. The government filed its response one day late.
Thomas then filed a new document called a motion for summary judgment. The court denied his request to obtain relief because of the late filing, finding that the one-day delay did not harm him. The court also said that any other request in the new filing was not properly made because the civil summary-judgment rule did not apply and Thomas had been allowed to file a reply, not another motion. The clerk was directed to terminate the new motion, and Thomas was given more time to file his reply.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also ruled that Thomas had not made the required showing for a certificate allowing an appeal, so no certificate would issue. The court further denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-10083
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 31, 2025
Background
Isaiah Thomas, proceeding without a lawyer, previously filed motions in the related criminal case to reduce his sentence and to vacate his sentence. The court ordered the government to file one consolidated opposition to both motions by January 23, 2025, and ordered Thomas to file one consolidated reply by February 13, 2025. The government filed its opposition on January 24, one day late.
Thomas then filed a document in the civil docket styled as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Summary judgment is a procedure for resolving a civil case when the material facts are not genuinely disputed. The opinion does not apply that procedure to Thomas’s underlying sentence-related motions.
Rulings on the New Filing
The court denied any request for relief based on the government’s one-day delay. Although the government should have filed on time, the court found that the delay did not prejudice Thomas and did not entitle him to relief on his earlier motions.
The court stated that any other relief sought in the new filing was procedurally improper because Rule 56 did not apply to these proceedings and because Thomas had been given permission to file a reply, not a new motion. The clerk was directed to terminate the new motion, docketed as ECF No. 4 in Case No. 24-CV-10083. The court also extended Thomas’s deadline to file his reply in support of his motions to reduce and vacate his sentence. The order says the new deadline is “February 20, 20285.” Thomas could instead ask by letter that the court treat the newly filed motion as his reply.
Appeal-Related Rulings
The court stated that Thomas had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It therefore ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is court authorization required for certain appeals in these proceedings.
The court also certified under the federal statute governing fee-free appeals that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Thomas permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Disposition and Classification
The order addressed the timing and form of Thomas’s filings, terminated the newly docketed motion, extended the reply deadline, and denied the specified appeal-related requests. It did not decide the merits of Thomas’s earlier motions to reduce or vacate his sentence. The order is therefore classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.