Ewing v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-09750
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Ewing v. United States, Judge Briccetti extended Takiem Ewing’s deadline to respond to the government’s argument that his post-conviction motion was untimely.
Takiem Ewing, who was proceeding without a lawyer, received additional time to respond; the government’s timeliness arguments remained pending.
What happened
In Ewing v. United States, Takiem Ewing asked the court to overturn his federal conviction through a post-conviction motion. The government argued that the motion was filed too late, but the court had not yet decided that issue.
The government filed its response on February 14, 2022, and Ewing did not respond by the original March 31 deadline. The order states that Ewing was proceeding without a lawyer and that the court had previously directed the government to address only whether his motion was timely.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti extended Ewing’s deadline to July 15, 2022, to respond to the government’s letter. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted and mailed the relevant documents to Ewing. The order did not decide whether his motion was timely or whether he should receive relief.
The detailed version
- Ewing v. United States · No. 7:21-cv-09750
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 31, 2022
Background
Takiem Ewing filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence. In an earlier order dated January 26, 2022, the court concluded that the motion should not be summarily dismissed as lacking merit, but that it might have been filed too late. The court directed the government to file a response addressing only timeliness and gave Ewing time to reply.
The government filed its response on February 14, 2022. It argued that Ewing’s motion was untimely under each potentially applicable one-year filing period. The government discussed Ewing’s asserted reasons for delay, including ineffective assistance of counsel and limits on prison law-library access during the pandemic. The government’s letter stated that it was not addressing the merits of Ewing’s claims because the court had limited its response to timeliness.
Current Order
Ewing did not file a response by the original March 31, 2022 deadline. The court noted that he was proceeding without a lawyer and extended his time to respond to the government’s February 14 letter until July 15, 2022. The court expressly stated that no further extensions would be granted.
The court also directed that copies of the current order, the January 26 order, and the government’s February 14 letter be mailed to Ewing. This order did not rule on whether Ewing’s § 2255 motion was timely, did not resolve the government’s dismissal request, and did not decide the merits of Ewing’s underlying claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.