Walker v. United States of New York
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:25-cv-04447
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Walker v. United States, Judge Seibel dismissed Walker’s premature post-conviction petition without prejudice because he had not yet been sentenced.
Glenroy Walker and the United States of America in Walker’s related criminal and civil cases.
What happened
In Glenroy Walker v. United States of America, Walker filed a petition challenging his federal conviction and sentence, but he had not yet been sentenced. His request for a judgment of acquittal was also still pending.
The court explained that this type of challenge generally becomes available only after sentencing, when there is a final conviction and judgment to challenge. It dismissed the petition without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar a later filing.
Judge Cathy Seibel directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the related filing in the criminal case and close the civil case. The court did not decide the merits of Walker’s challenge.
The detailed version
- Walker v. United States of New York · No. 7:25-cv-04447
- Cathy Seibel
- May 29, 2025
Background
Glenroy Walker filed what the court treated as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the federal procedure for asking a court to vacate a federal conviction or sentence. The related criminal case is No. 23-CR-662 (CS). Walker had not yet been sentenced, and his motion for a judgment of acquittal remained pending.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a § 2255 collateral attack generally requires a final judgment of conviction. Because Walker had not been sentenced, his conviction was not final and there was no judgment to vacate. The court also noted that courts generally avoid deciding such a petition before the direct-appeal process is complete, because a later appeal could make the decision unnecessary or ineffective.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition without prejudice. It stated that, if the motion for a judgment of acquittal were denied, Walker could seek a direct appeal after sentencing and, if the conviction were affirmed, could then file a § 2255 motion challenging the conviction. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 215 in the criminal case and close No. 25-CV-4447. Judge Cathy Seibel did not reach the merits of Walker’s challenge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.