Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 27, 2020

Antonetti v. United States

Judge
Kimba Wood
Docket
1:18-cv-07239
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Antonetti v. United States, Judge Wood ordered the Government to respond to Antonetti’s citation to a Supreme Court decision.

Who this affects

Jose Antonetti and the United States Government; the Government was required to respond to Antonetti’s citation to Davis.

What happened

Jose Antonetti filed a petition asking the court to set aside or change his federal conviction or sentence. He later asked the court to consider the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis.

The court ordered the United States Government to respond to Antonetti’s citation to Davis by August 5, 2020.

Judge Kimba M. Wood did not decide the petition or the significance of Davis in this order; she only required the Government to file a response.

The detailed version

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

Case
Antonetti v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-07239
Judge
Kimba Wood
Date
July 27, 2020

Background Jose Antonetti filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to challenge the conviction or sentence. On September 30, 2019, Antonetti asked the court to take notice of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019).

Order The court ordered the Government to respond to Antonetti’s citation to Davis by August 5, 2020.

Disposition Judge Kimba M. Wood issued an order requiring a response. The order did not decide the § 2255 petition, determine whether Davis applied, or reach the merits of Antonetti’s challenge. The order is classified as a procedural order because it addressed the next step in the case rather than deciding the underlying legal question.

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.