Pivnick v. United States
- P. Castel
- 1:25-cv-02810
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pivnick v. United States, Judge Castel granted Pivnick 60 days to amend his conviction challenge without deciding its merits.
Bryan Pivnick’s post-conviction application and the United States as respondent; the order gives Pivnick 60 days to file an amended pleading but does not decide his conviction challenge.
What happened
In Pivnick v. United States, Bryan Pivnick, who is incarcerated and representing himself, challenged his federal criminal conviction. He told the court he did not want his filing treated as a motion under the federal law used to challenge convictions after sentencing, and instead wanted to pursue an extraordinary petition that can sometimes challenge a conviction after custody ends.
Because public Bureau of Prisons information indicated that Pivnick remained incarcerated, the court said it was unclear whether that type of petition was appropriate. The court gave him more time to file an amended pleading containing all of his grounds for challenging the conviction.
Judge P. Kevin Castel granted the extension and required Pivnick to file within 60 days. The court will then decide whether the United States must respond. If Pivnick does not respond, his current application will be dismissed without prejudice. The court also said no response was required yet, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Pivnick v. United States · No. 1:25-cv-02810
- P. Castel
- July 11, 2025
Background
Bryan Pivnick, who is incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix and proceeds without a lawyer, challenged the judgment entered in his federal criminal case. The Court had previously notified him that it intended to treat his application as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure for a person in custody to seek relief from a federal conviction or sentence, and gave him an opportunity either to withdraw the application or file an amended motion.
Pivnick responded that he did not intend to proceed under Section 2255. He said he wanted to seek a writ of error coram nobis, an extraordinary form of collateral relief that may be available in limited circumstances to challenge a conviction when ordinary custody-based remedies are unavailable. He also requested more time to respond.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a coram nobis petition is an extraordinary remedy of last resort. It generally requires showing circumstances compelling relief to achieve justice, a sound reason for not seeking earlier relief, and continuing legal consequences from the conviction that the requested relief could remedy.
The court noted that Bureau of Prisons information indicated Pivnick remained incarcerated, although he did not use the facility as his address of record. Because he appeared to remain in custody, the court said it was not clear that coram nobis was the proper vehicle for his requested relief. The court also stated that it did not presently intend to treat his filings as a Section 2255 motion over his express objection.
Disposition
The court granted Pivnick’s request for an extension of time and directed him to file an amended pleading containing all grounds for challenging his conviction within 60 days of the order. After receiving that pleading, the court will determine whether to direct the United States to answer. No answer was required at that time.
If Pivnick does not respond within the permitted period, the court stated that his current application will not be designated as a Section 2255 motion and will be dismissed without prejudice. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because Pivnick had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, and it denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge P. Kevin Castel signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.