Capunay Guzman v. Joyce
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-04777
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Capunay Guzman v. Joyce, Judge Abrams ordered the petitioner to reply by June 13 and explain why his presence is necessary.
Derwin Capunay Guzman, who was ordered to file a reply explaining why his presence in the district is necessary; the government defendants and their opposition to the motion to compel are also involved.
What happened
In Capunay Guzman v. Joyce, Derwin Capunay Guzman is the petitioner, and William P. Joyce, Kristi Noem, and Pamela Bondi are the defendants in their official capacities. The order provides no additional background about the dispute or the motion to compel.
The court ordered the petitioner to respond to the government’s opposition to the motion to compel by June 13, 2025, at noon. The response must explain why the petitioner’s presence in the Southern District of New York is necessary to resolve the matter.
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued this scheduling and briefing order on June 12, 2025. The order did not decide the motion to compel or the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Capunay Guzman v. Joyce · No. 1:25-cv-04777
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 12, 2025
Order
The court ordered Derwin Capunay Guzman to submit a reply to the government’s opposition to his motion to compel no later than June 13, 2025, at 12:00 p.m.
Required explanation
The reply must specifically explain why the petitioner’s presence in the Southern District of New York is necessary to facilitate resolution of the matter. The court cited two decisions involving Ozturk.
Disposition
This order directs further briefing and does not state that the court granted or denied the motion to compel. It also does not decide the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.