Genovese v. United States
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-00800
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Genovese v. United States, Judge Furman granted Genovese a pro se opportunity to respond to the Government’s filing on his Section 2255 motion’s merits.
Nicholas J. Genovese, who was allowed to respond to the Government’s merits submission but was not appointed counsel for that response.
What happened
In Genovese v. United States, Nicholas J. Genovese, representing himself, filed a motion under Section 2255, a law allowing a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence. The court said it might need to consider the substance of his claims.
A lawyer had been appointed only to address whether the motion was timely and whether Genovese had waived his claims. That lawyer addressed only those issues, not the substance of the claims.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Genovese an opportunity to respond to the Government’s filing on the merits. Genovese had to file that response himself by July 14, 2022; the court did not appoint a lawyer to address the merits.
The detailed version
- Genovese v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-00800
- Jesse Furman
- June 13, 2022
Background
Nicholas J. Genovese, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The opinion does not describe the specific claims in the motion. The court stated that, after reviewing the parties’ submissions, it might need to reach the merits of Genovese’s claims.
Counsel and briefing
The court had appointed counsel only for issues concerning the motion’s timeliness and waiver. Consistent with the appointment, counsel briefed only those issues and did not brief the merits.
Ruling
The court granted Genovese an opportunity to respond to the Government’s submission on the merits. The response had to be filed by July 14, 2022, and Genovese had to file it without counsel. After considering the factors identified in the cited precedent, Judge Jesse M. Furman declined to appoint counsel for the merits. The clerk was directed to mail Genovese a copy of the order. The opinion did not decide the merits of Genovese’s claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.