Perez v. United States
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-09129
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez v. United States, Judge Woods denied as moot Perez’s request for the government’s opposition and more response time because the court had already provided that relief.
Jonathan Perez, who was representing himself in a pending § 2255 proceeding, and the United States, which was directed to confirm that it had mailed its opposition.
What happened
Perez, representing himself, asked the court to require the government to give him its opposition to his pending motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and to give him 30 additional days to respond. He said he had not received the opposition and could not adequately prepare because of a nationwide Bureau of Prisons lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court said that, in an order dated June 11, 2020, it had already extended Perez’s response deadline until September and directed the government to mail him a copy of its opposition by June 18, 2020. Because the requested relief had already been granted, the court denied the motion as moot. It also directed the government to file a letter confirming compliance by June 26, 2020.
Judge Gregory Woods certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Perez permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Perez a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Perez v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-09129
- Gregory Woods
- June 24, 2020
Background
Jonathan Perez, acting without a lawyer, filed a motion in his pending proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He asked the court to require the government or the Clerk’s Office to provide him with the government’s opposition to his § 2255 motion. He also requested an additional 30 days to respond after receiving that opposition.
Perez stated that the court had ordered the government to file its answer by March 20, 2020, and had set April 27, 2020, as his response deadline. He said he had not received the government’s filing. He also stated that a Bureau of Prisons nationwide lockdown beginning April 1, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic prevented him from accessing legal materials needed to prepare a response.
Ruling
The court stated that, by an order dated June 11, 2020, it had already granted Perez an extension of time until September and directed the government to mail him a copy of its opposition by June 18, 2020. Because the court had already granted the relief Perez requested, it denied the motion as moot. The court directed the government to file a letter by June 26, 2020, confirming that it had complied with the June 11 order.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Perez a copy of the order. This order addressed Perez’s request for documents and additional time; it did not decide the merits of his underlying § 2255 motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.