Pena v. United States
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-06299
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pena v. United States, Judge Abrams gave pro se movant Starley Pena 14 days to decide whether to file a new motion with possible appointed counsel.
Starley Pena, who filed the § 2255 motion without a lawyer; the order also concerns his former lawyer, Robert Osuna, and the possible appointment of volunteer counsel.
What happened
In Pena v. United States, Starley Pena asked to have his conviction and sentence set aside, claiming his lawyer had provided ineffective assistance. He filed the request without a lawyer.
The court found that many quotations and citations in Pena’s filings were inaccurate, misleading, or nonexistent. Based partly on information from Pena’s former lawyer, the court said the filings may have been prepared by non-lawyers claiming to provide legitimate legal services.
Judge Ronnie Abrams gave Pena 14 days after receiving the order to say whether he wants to file a new motion and, if so, whether he wants appointed volunteer counsel. The order did not decide whether Pena’s ineffective-assistance claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Pena v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-06299
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 7, 2025
Background
Starley Pena, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his conviction and sentence based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. His former lawyer, Robert Osuna, later filed an affirmation responding to Pena’s allegations. Osuna stated, among other things, that Pena’s wife had told him she planned to hire a non-law-firm service called Federal-alert.com to prepare a § 2255 motion for Pena.
Court’s concerns
After reviewing Pena’s submissions, the court found that many of the quotations and citations were inaccurate, misleading, or entirely nonexistent. Although courts generally interpret filings by people without lawyers liberally, the court said the information from Osuna gave it reason to believe that non-lawyers presenting themselves as legitimate legal-service providers may have prepared Pena’s submissions.
Order
The court gave Pena an opportunity to file a new motion. Within 14 days after receiving the order, Pena must tell the court whether he intends to file a new motion and, if he does, whether he wants volunteer appointed counsel to represent him. The court stated that it would appoint such counsel if Pena chooses to seek it. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Pena.
The opinion does not decide the merits of Pena’s ineffective-assistance claim and does not state a disposition of the original motion beyond providing this opportunity to file a new one.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.