Reyes v. Superintendent LaManna
- Ona Wang
- 1:18-cv-08724
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Reyes v. Superintendent LaManna, Judge Wang granted Reyes another reply deadline extension and reminded him about choosing between exhausted and potentially unexhausted claims.
Roderick Reyes, whose reply brief deadline was extended and who was reminded of his options concerning potentially unexhausted claims.
What happened
In Reyes v. Superintendent LaManna, the court granted Roderick Reyes’s request for another extension of his reply brief deadline.
The court set January 24, 2020, as the new deadline. It said any future extension request must include evidence of Reyes’s hospitalization or the request might be denied. The court also reminded Reyes to tell it by December 20, 2019, whether he would abandon potentially unexhausted claims and proceed with the remaining claims, or proceed with all claims while risking dismissal of the entire petition if the court found that he had not exhausted the required remedies.
Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order and directed the Clerk of Court to mail a copy to Reyes.
The detailed version
- Reyes v. Superintendent LaManna · No. 1:18-cv-08724
- Ona Wang
- Dec. 13, 2019
Background
Petitioner Roderick Reyes asked the court for another extension of the deadline to file his reply brief. The order also referred to the court’s November 22, 2019 order, which required Reyes to decide how to proceed with claims that might not have been exhausted.
Court’s Rulings
Judge Ona T. Wang granted Reyes’s request for another extension. The court ordered him to file his reply brief by January 24, 2020. It stated that any future request for an extension of the reply deadline must include documentation showing evidence of Reyes’s hospitalization; otherwise, the request may be denied.
The court reminded Reyes that he had to notify it by December 20, 2019, whether he would: (1) abandon any potentially unexhausted claims and proceed only with the remaining exhausted claims; or (2) proceed with all claims while risking dismissal of the entire petition if the court found a lack of exhaustion. The order cited Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Reyes.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed a filing deadline and the procedure for proceeding with potentially unexhausted claims; it did not decide the merits of Reyes’s petition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.