Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 29, 2020

Rivas v. Decker

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:15-cv-04083
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rivas v. Decker, Judge Swain ordered supplemental briefing after the Second Circuit vacated an earlier habeas ruling.

Who this affects

The order affects Adalgisa Rivas and Kenneth Decker and the other respondents by requiring supplemental briefing about the petition and the next steps in the case.

What happened

Rivas v. Decker concerns a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s June 26, 2015, order, which had granted part of the petition and denied part of it.

The district court asked the parties to address how Nielsen v. Preap and Jennings v. Rodriguez affect the petition, whether later events made the petition moot, and what further steps should resolve the matter.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs by May 22, 2020, with responses due by June 5, 2020. This order did not decide the petition’s claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rivas v. Decker · No. 1:15-cv-04083
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 29, 2020

Background

Adalgisa Rivas filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Kenneth Decker and other respondents. On June 26, 2015, the district court entered an order granting part of the petition and denying part of it. The opinion states that the Second Circuit later vacated that order in a February 14, 2020, order.

Order

In light of the Second Circuit’s action, the court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing three subjects: the effect of Nielsen v. Preap and Jennings v. Rodriguez on the claims in the petition; whether intervening events had made the petition moot; and what further action, if any, should be taken to resolve the matter.

The initial supplemental briefs were due May 22, 2020, and responses were due June 5, 2020. The order did not itself resolve the petition or state whether the petition was moot.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.