Twiggs v. United States
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:16-cv-04562
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Twiggs v. United States, Judge Ramos ordered a status report on a stayed post-conviction petition and warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions.
Michael Twiggs and the United States, whose parties were directed to submit a joint status report.
What happened
In Twiggs v. United States, Michael Twiggs filed a petition under a federal law allowing a prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. The court stayed the case while the Supreme Court considered Beckles v. United States.
The Supreme Court issued its Beckles opinion on March 6, 2017, but the parties took no action for about two years. The order does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the Supreme Court’s decision.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the parties to submit a joint status report by April 15, 2020. He warned that failing to comply could lead to sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Twiggs v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04562
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 1, 2020
Background
Michael Twiggs filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on June 14, 2016. The opinion also lists a related criminal docket, No. 13 Cr. 608 (ER). On January 10, 2017, the court granted Twiggs’s request to stay the case while the Supreme Court resolved Beckles v. United States. The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Beckles on March 6, 2017.
The order states that the parties then took no action for approximately two years. It does not explain the claims in Twiggs’s petition, the result in Beckles, or the merits of the petition.
Order
The court directed the parties to provide a joint status report by April 15, 2020. It warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.
Disposition and Classification
This is a procedural order. The court did not grant or deny the § 2255 petition and did not decide its underlying claims. It directed the parties to provide information about the case’s status and warned of possible future sanctions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.