Jimenez v. Bennett
Pedro Jimenez v. Stacie Bennett, Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-05753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jimenez v. Bennett, Judge Ramos referred Jimenez’s incarceration petition back to the magistrate judge and paused objections to the recommendation.
Pedro Jimenez, the incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer; Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker will reconsider whether his supplemental legal authorities affect her recommendation, and the deadline for objections is paused for now.
What happened
In Pedro Jimenez v. Stacie Bennett, Pedro Jimenez, who is incarcerated and has no lawyer, filed a petition challenging his incarceration. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition and gave Jimenez time to object.
Jimenez filed a brief before the objection deadline. The court concluded that the brief was meant to add legal support for his petition, not to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, because Jimenez likely had not yet received the recommendation and the brief did not mention it.
Judge Ramos referred the matter back to the magistrate judge to consider whether Jimenez’s additional legal authorities changed the recommendation. Judge Ramos also paused the deadline for objections to the recommendation and any amended recommendation until further court order.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. Bennett · No. 1:24-cv-05753
- Edgardo Ramos
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
Pedro Jimenez, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a court order concerning his incarceration on July 29, 2024. The Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker for a report and recommendation on August 7, 2024.
After briefing, Magistrate Judge Parker issued a report and recommendation on September 11, 2025. It recommended denying Jimenez’s petition and informed him that he had 17 days after service to submit written objections. The Clerk mailed the report and recommendation to Jimenez on September 12, 2025, making September 29, 2025 the objection deadline.
Jimenez’s Filing
On September 23, 2025, Jimenez filed a 15-page brief titled “Reasons for Granting Leave to Supplemental (sic) Argument.” Although the brief was filed on September 23, Jimenez had signed it on September 15. The Court found that the filing was intended to supplement Jimenez’s arguments supporting his petition rather than respond to the report and recommendation.
The Court relied on three circumstances: Jimenez likely had not received the report and recommendation by September 15, only three days after it was mailed; the brief did not mention the report and recommendation; and the brief presented two recently issued cases that Jimenez argued supported his petition.
Court’s Action
Judge Edgardo Ramos referred the matter back to Magistrate Judge Parker so she could first determine whether the additional legal authority required a result different from the recommendation. The Court also adjourned, or paused, the time for Jimenez to object to the report and recommendation and any amended report and recommendation until further order of the Court.
This order did not decide whether Jimenez’s petition should be denied. It also did not adopt or reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court’s action was limited to the referral and the extension of the objection deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.