Gunn v. United States
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:16-cv-04887
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gunn v. United States, Senior Judge Pauley ordered briefing on whether a successive petition met threshold requirements after the appeals court authorized filing it.
Roderick Gunn and the United States, whose further filings were required under the schedule set by the court.
What happened
In Gunn v. United States, the Second Circuit allowed Roderick Gunn to file another petition under a federal law that permits prisoners to challenge their convictions or sentences. The appeals court found an initial showing for only one claim and sent the matter back to the District Court.
The District Court did not decide whether Gunn’s claims were valid. Instead, it ordered both sides to address whether the petition met the legal requirements for a successive petition and directed the Government to respond to Gunn’s motion to reopen.
Senior Judge William H. Pauley III set deadlines for Gunn’s filing, the Government’s response, and Gunn’s reply. The order also stated that court staff would mail a copy to Gunn.
The detailed version
- Gunn v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04887
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Oct. 14, 2020
Background
Roderick Gunn sought to file a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the federal procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence after the usual post-conviction motion. On October 1, 2020, the Second Circuit issued a mandate lifting the stay previously entered by the District Court, granting Gunn leave to file the successive § 2255 petition, and returning the matter to the District Court.
The Second Circuit had concluded only that Gunn made an initial showing as to one claim. It did not determine that the claim would ultimately succeed. The District Court therefore identified its preliminary task as deciding whether the claims satisfied the threshold requirements for successive § 2255 motions, including requirements under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a), 2244(b)(3)-(4), and 2255(h).
Order
The court directed the parties to file supplemental briefing addressing those threshold requirements. It also directed the Government to address Gunn’s “Motion to Reopen,” identified in the criminal docket as docket entry 86.
The court set this schedule:
- Gunn’s supplemental briefing was due December 4, 2020. - The Government’s response papers were due January 14, 2021. - Gunn’s reply was due February 17, 2021.
The order did not decide the merits of Gunn’s § 2255 claims, grant or deny the petition, or rule on the Motion to Reopen. It required further briefing and set filing deadlines. A copy was to be mailed to Gunn by Chambers staff.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.