Casius v. United States
- Kimba Wood
- 1:16-cv-04848
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Casius v. United States, Judge Wood ordered updates on a stayed petition after the Supreme Court decided Davis.
Casius Ernest and the United States; both parties were ordered to update the court about how they wished to proceed.
What happened
In Casius v. United States, Casius Ernest filed a petition challenging his federal criminal case under a law allowing prisoners to seek relief from their sentences. The court stayed the proceeding while related appellate and Supreme Court cases were resolved.
The Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Davis on June 24, 2019. The court ordered the parties to tell it by November 30, 2020, how they wanted to proceed with Ernest’s petition.
Judge Kimba M. Wood did not decide the petition’s merits. She entered the update order on November 12, 2020.
The detailed version
- Casius v. United States · No. 1:16-cv-04848
- Kimba Wood
- Nov. 12, 2020
Background
On June 22, 2016, Casius Ernest filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure allowing a federal prisoner to seek relief from a sentence. At the parties’ request, the court stayed the proceeding on September 9, 2016, while the courts resolved United States v. Elvin Hill. At Ernest’s request and with the Government’s consent, the court continued the stay on December 11, 2018, while the courts resolved United States v. Barrett. The court continued the stay again on February 7, 2019, pending the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Davis.
Order
The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Davis on June 24, 2019. The court ordered the parties to update it by November 30, 2020, stating how they wished to proceed with Ernest’s § 2255 petition.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny Ernest’s petition and did not decide its merits. It directed the parties to provide an update after the Supreme Court’s decision. The order was signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on November 12, 2020.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.