DiValentino v. Royce
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-02271
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 18
In DiValentino v. Royce, Judge Stanton granted Anthony DiValentino 60 days to file an amended petition challenging his state conviction.
Anthony DiValentino was allowed to file an amended petition challenging his state conviction or sentence within 60 days; the court did not decide the merits of his claims.
What happened
In Anthony DiValentino v. Mark Royce, DiValentino asked to withdraw his petition challenging a state conviction because he planned to file a new petition before the limitations period expired on July 19, 2020.
The court treated his letter as a request to amend the existing petition rather than withdraw it. It granted him permission to file an amended petition within 60 days of the order.
Judge Louis L. Stanton did not decide the substance of DiValentino’s claims. The order included an amended-petition form for him to use.
The detailed version
- DiValentino v. Royce · No. 1:20-cv-02271
- Louis Stanton
- June 16, 2020
Background
The court received a letter from Petitioner Anthony DiValentino on May 22, 2020. He said he wanted to withdraw his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a person in state custody to seek federal review of a state conviction or sentence. He explained that he intended to file a new petition before the statute of limitations expired on July 19, 2020.
Court’s action
Because DiValentino could seek to amend his petition, the court treated his letter as a request to file an amended petition in the existing case. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 2242, which permits amendments to habeas petitions under rules applicable to civil cases.
Disposition
Judge Louis L. Stanton granted DiValentino leave to file an amended petition within 60 days of the order. The court also directed that a copy of the order be mailed and attached an amended petition form. The opinion does not decide whether DiValentino is entitled to relief on the underlying conviction or sentence.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.