Rodriguez v. United States
- Charles Haight
- 1:14-cv-04628
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Rodriguez v. United States, Judge Haight set an expedited briefing schedule for potential relief based on United States v. Davis.
Jaime Rodriguez and Steven Camacho, the incarcerated habeas movants, and the United States, which was ordered to respond on an expedited schedule.
What happened
Rodriguez and Steven Camacho, who were incarcerated, asked the court to act quickly on potential habeas relief based on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis. They objected to a proposed schedule that would have required their opening papers by January 31, 2020, and the government’s response by February 28, 2020.
The court did not decide whether Davis invalidated Rodriguez’s or Camacho’s firearms convictions or whether either person was entitled to immediate release. Instead, it interpreted the proposed dates as deadlines that allowed earlier filings and ordered the government to respond as quickly as possible, and no later than 21 calendar days after being served with the planned motion and brief. The petitioners could reply within 10 days after receiving the government’s response.
Senior District Judge Charles Haight issued the order on January 9, 2020. The order addressed scheduling only and stated that the cases would be treated as fully submitted after the reply period, unless the court later requested oral argument.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. United States · No. 1:14-cv-04628
- Charles Haight
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
The opinion concerns consolidated habeas cases brought by Jaime Rodriguez and Steven Camacho, with related criminal docket number 94 Cr. 313. In a prior November 18, 2019 order, the court directed the Clerk to treat their joint application as a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to seek relief from a judgment or order in specified circumstances. That earlier order also appointed the Federal Defenders of New York to represent them regarding possible motions based on United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).
Rodriguez and Camacho had received consecutive five-year sentences after firearms-statute convictions. They argued that Davis, which held 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutional, entitled them to relief and possibly immediate release. The opinion states that the court expressed no present view on whether that argument was correct.
Ruling
The Federal Defenders and the government had proposed that the petitioners’ opening papers be filed by January 31, 2020, followed by a government response by February 28 and a reply by March 13. The court did not discard the schedule entirely. It construed the January 31 and February 28 dates as meaning “not later than” those dates, allowing earlier filings.
The court ordered the Federal Defender to file and serve the petitioners’ papers as soon as reasonably possible and no later than January 31, 2020. It ordered the government to respond as promptly as possible and no later than 21 calendar days after service of the intended motion and brief. The petitioners could reply within 10 calendar days after service of the government’s response. The court stated that the case would then be fully submitted, unless chambers advised counsel that oral argument was desired.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not grant or deny habeas relief, vacate either firearms conviction, or order release. It identified the merits questions for the future briefing: whether Davis invalidated the convictions and, if so, whether Rodriguez and Camacho were legally entitled to immediate release. Senior District Judge Charles Haight’s action in this opinion was to set and accelerate the briefing schedule.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.