Torres v. Francis
- Andrew Carter
- 1:25-cv-09573
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Torres v. Francis, Judge Carter noted the petition’s email receipt time and directed termination of the government’s pending motion.
The petitioner, the government, and the Clerk of Court were affected. The court recorded the petition’s reported email-receipt time and directed termination of the pending motion at ECF No. 7, without deciding the petition’s merits.
What happened
Torres v. Francis concerns a petition challenging the petitioner’s detention. The government told the court that the petitioner was detained at Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey, and that a next friend sent the petition to the court on November 23, 2025.
The government asked the court to have the Clerk record the exact time the petition was received, including any email transmitting it. The request was based on the government’s position that the petition’s filing time could affect whether this court was the proper court to hear it.
The Clerk informed the court that the petition was received by email at 2:58 p.m. on November 23, 2025. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 7; the opinion does not state that the court decided the petition’s venue or detention issues.
The detailed version
- Torres v. Francis · No. 1:25-cv-09573
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 26, 2025
Background
The United States Attorney’s Office, representing the government, submitted a letter concerning a detention challenge filed by a next friend for the petitioner. The letter stated that the petition was filed on November 23, 2025, and that the petitioner had been detained at Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey, since some time that day.
The government argued that jurisdiction over a core detention challenge under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 depends on where the petitioner is physically located when the petition is filed. Because the docket showed the filing date but not the time the Clerk’s Office or Pro Se Intake Unit received the petition, the government said it could not determine whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York. The petition appeared on the electronic docket at 1:25 p.m. on November 24, but the government explained that this was not necessarily the time the court received it.
Request and Court Action
The government requested an order directing the Clerk to docket the exact time the petition was received on November 23, including any email correspondence that transmitted the petition. The court was informed by the Clerk that the Pro Se Intake Unit received the petition by email at 2:58 p.m. on November 23, 2025.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at ECF No. 7. The opinion does not state that the court ruled on venue, jurisdiction, or the merits of the petitioner’s detention challenge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.