Stuyvesant v. Conway
- Rochon
- 1:03-cv-03856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Curtis Van Stuyvesant v. James Conway, Judge Rochon denied Van Stuyvesant’s motion to reopen an earlier habeas petition denial as untimely and meritless.
Curtis Van Stuyvesant’s request to vacate the 2007 order was denied, and his request for pro bono counsel was not granted. James Conway was the named respondent.
What happened
Curtis Van Stuyvesant v. James Conway concerned Van Stuyvesant’s request to set aside a 2007 order that had denied his earlier petition. He filed the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) while representing himself.
The court found that the request was filed too late and lacked merit, largely for the same reasons given when an earlier request was denied in 2023. Van Stuyvesant also asked the court to appoint a volunteer lawyer, but the court determined that his claims did not justify appointing counsel.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it from the docket. The order did not grant the request for a volunteer lawyer.
The detailed version
- Stuyvesant v. Conway · No. 1:03-cv-03856
- Rochon
- Sept. 16, 2025
Background
On August 5, 2025, Curtis Van Stuyvesant, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The motion sought to vacate Judge Kaplan’s September 10, 2007 order denying Van Stuyvesant’s habeas corpus petition. A motion under Rule 60(b) asks a court to provide relief from an earlier judgment or order.
The opinion states that Van Stuyvesant had filed an earlier motion seeking to vacate the same 2007 order on October 5, 2022. This Court denied that earlier motion on January 20, 2023. Van Stuyvesant also requested appointment of pro bono counsel, meaning a lawyer who would represent him without charging him a fee.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the arguments in the current Rule 60(b) motion and found it untimely and without merit. The court stated that many of the same reasons supporting the denial of the earlier petition also supported denying the current motion. The court further stated that pro bono counsel should not be appointed because Van Stuyvesant’s claims were without merit, citing the rule that appointment is unwarranted when the chances of success are slim.
Disposition
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered that Van Stuyvesant’s motion be denied. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF 90. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.