DeJesus v. Royce
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-07212
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In DeJesus v. Royce, Judge Furman stayed the answer deadline, set briefing on a stay motion, and denied substitution as premature.
Jaime DeJesus and Mark Royce; the order also directed electronic service on the Attorney General of the State of New York and the District Attorney of Bronx County.
What happened
In DeJesus v. Royce, Jaime DeJesus filed a petition under a federal law governing certain state-court challenges and asked the court to pause the case. He also asked to replace Mark Royce as the respondent.
The court set September 22, 2022, for Royce’s opposition to the stay request and September 29, 2022, for DeJesus’s reply. It stayed the deadline for Royce to answer until the court rules on the stay motion.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied DeJesus’s request to replace the respondent as premature. The court said DeJesus could promptly renew that request if or when he is actually transferred, and directed electronic service of the order and filings on the New York Attorney General and Bronx County District Attorney.
The detailed version
- DeJesus v. Royce · No. 1:22-cv-07212
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 26, 2022
Background
Jaime DeJesus filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and moved for a stay under Rhines v. Weber. The opinion does not decide whether the stay should ultimately be granted. DeJesus also requested substitution of the respondent, Mark Royce, as noted in a footnote to the motion.
Court’s actions
The court ordered that any opposition to the stay motion be filed by September 22, 2022, and that any reply be filed by September 29, 2022. It stayed the respondent’s deadline to answer the petition pending a ruling on the stay motion.
The court denied DeJesus’s request to substitute the respondent as premature. It stated that DeJesus should promptly move for substitution if or when he is actually transferred.
Service directive
The Clerk of Court was directed to serve the order, the petition, and the motion to stay electronically on the Attorney General of the State of New York and the District Attorney of Bronx County.
Disposition
The order stayed the answer deadline pending a ruling on the motion for a stay and denied the substitution request as premature. It did not resolve the petition’s underlying claims or rule on the stay motion itself.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.