Williams v. United States
- Kimba Wood
- 1:19-cv-11402
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. United States, Judge Wood ordered appointed counsel to explain his work before ruling on Williams’s petition.
Curtis Williams and his appointed attorney, Ezra Spilke; the order also directed Spilke to provide information to the court.
What happened
In Williams v. United States, the court had appointed Ezra Spilke to help Curtis Williams prepare an amended petition challenging his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court set a filing deadline, but Spilke said he had recorded the wrong date and later reported that Williams did not intend to file an amended petition.
The court said the record did not show whether Spilke had properly performed his duties. It explained that a prior appellate decision requires relief when a lawyer agrees to pursue a petition, abandons it, and leaves the petitioner with no opportunity to be heard.
Judge Kimba M. Wood ordered Spilke to submit an affidavit by March 26, 2020, stating whether and when he discussed the petition with Williams, what they discussed, whether anything remained to be discussed, whether he researched the petition, and whether additional legal arguments could be made. The court did not decide the petition’s merits.
The detailed version
- Williams v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-11402
- Kimba Wood
- Mar. 19, 2020
Background
On January 8, 2020, the court appointed Ezra Spilke to assist Curtis Williams in preparing an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court had ordered the amended petition by March 9, 2020. On March 11, Spilke told the court that he had recorded an incorrect deadline, was on trial, and was unlikely to file an amended petition. He asked for a week to confirm whether he would file one. On March 18, he informed the court that Williams did not intend to file an amended petition.
Court’s analysis
The court relied on the rule that a denial of a petition challenging a federal sentence must be set aside under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) if appointed counsel agreed to pursue the case, abandoned it, and thereby deprived the petitioner of any opportunity to be heard. The court found that the existing record was inadequate to determine whether Spilke had fulfilled his duties to Williams.
Order
The court ordered Spilke to provide an affidavit by March 26, 2020. The affidavit must state whether Spilke discussed the petition with Williams; whether the discussion was oral or written; when it occurred; what was discussed; whether anything remained to be discussed; whether Spilke conducted legal research; and whether he believed additional legal arguments could be made beyond those in Williams’s filings prepared without a lawyer. The order sought information to ensure that any eventual judgment on Williams’s petition would be valid. It did not rule on the petition’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.