Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 15, 2020

Ramirez v. United States

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:05-cv-04179-PGG
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ramirez v. United States, Judge Paul G. Gardephe gave Juan Ramirez until November 30, 2020, to reply to the government’s opposition.

Who this affects

Juan Ramirez, who was proceeding without a lawyer, and the United States. The order set Ramirez’s deadline to respond to the government’s opposition.

What happened

In Ramirez v. United States, the Second Circuit had allowed Juan Ramirez to file another petition under Section 2255, citing two Supreme Court decisions.

The government filed its opposition on October 14, 2020. The opinion does not decide whether Ramirez’s petition should be granted or denied.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe directed Ramirez to file any reply by November 30, 2020, and ordered the clerk to send him the order by certified mail.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ramirez v. United States · No. 1:05-cv-04179-PGG
Judge
Paul G. Gardephe
Date
Oct. 15, 2020

Background

On August 26, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted Juan Ramirez permission to file a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A successive petition is a later petition under that statute. The Second Circuit’s order referred to Johnson v. United States and United States v. Davis.

The government filed its opposition to Ramirez’s petition on October 14, 2020. The opinion does not describe the government’s arguments or decide the merits of the petition.

Ruling and next step

Judge Paul G. Gardephe directed Ramirez to file any reply by November 30, 2020. The court clerk was also directed to send a copy of the order to Ramirez by certified mail. This order addressed the next filing deadline; it did not grant or deny the Section 2255 petition.

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.