Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 23, 2020

Re v. United States

Judge
P. Castel
Docket
1:19-cv-01889
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In United States v. Re, Judge Castel denied John Re’s Section 2255 motion as time-barred and denied payment-free appeal status.

Who this affects

John Re, whose Section 2255 motion was denied as time-barred; the Court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, denied payment-free appeal status, and directed closure of the cases.

What happened

In United States of America v. John Re, Re filed a motion under Section 2255, but the court had ordered him to submit a declaration explaining why the motion should not be denied as time-barred. He did not file that declaration.

The court therefore denied the motion as time-barred. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for certain federal appeals, because Re had not made the required showing that a constitutional right was denied.

Judge P. Kevin Castel further ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Re permission to appeal without paying filing costs. The Clerk was directed to close this case and the related civil case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Re v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-01889
Judge
P. Castel
Date
July 23, 2020

Background

John Re filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal defendant to challenge a conviction or sentence. In an April 1, 2019 order, the Court directed Re to file a declaration showing why the motion should not be denied as time-barred. The opinion states that Re did not file the required declaration. The opinion also lists related criminal docket number 14-cr-550 (PKC).

Ruling

The Court denied Re’s § 2255 motion as time-barred. The opinion does not analyze the underlying claims in the motion.

Appeal-related rulings

The Court stated that Re had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied and therefore would not issue a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is a court authorization required for certain federal appeals. The Court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for the appeal, meaning Re could not proceed with the appeal without paying the required costs under that status.

Disposition

Judge P. Kevin Castel directed the Clerk to close this case and the related civil case.

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.