Jordan v. Lamanna

Background

Gigi Jordan filed a petition seeking federal review of her state conviction and sentence. The district court originally granted the petition and ordered her release pending the respondent’s appeal. The court later ordered Jordan’s release from federal custody subject to conditions, including a bond and home detention with electronic monitoring. In March 2022, the court relaxed home detention to a curfew.

The Second Circuit later reversed the grant of Jordan’s petition and sent the case back with instructions to deny the petition. On June 16, 2022, the district court denied the petition and dismissed the case. Jordan then received an extension of time to file a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit’s decision.

The Motion and the Parties’ Arguments

Amy Lamanna, identified as the superintendent of the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, asked the district court to confirm that its earlier release orders were no longer effective or to vacate those orders. Lamanna argued that the orders had expired when the Second Circuit ruled or that the Second Circuit’s decision was an independent custody order requiring Jordan’s return to state custody. Lamanna also argued, alternatively, that there was no longer a justification for Jordan to avoid state custody.

Jordan argued that the Second Circuit’s decision was not an independent custody order and that the motion was filed in the wrong court because Supreme Court review was still possible. She argued alternatively that Lamanna had not shown that the factors identified in Hilton v. Braunskill justified ending her release conditions.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Sarah L. Cave held that the district court lacked authority to modify or vacate the earlier release orders while Jordan sought Supreme Court review. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(d) provides that an initial order governing a habeas petitioner’s custody or release continues during review unless the court of appeals or the Supreme Court, or a judge of either court, modifies it or issues an independent custody order. The court also considered a similar provision in Rule 36 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

The court concluded that the release orders had not expired by their own terms because they did not state that they would end when the Second Circuit ruled. The court also rejected Lamanna’s argument that the Second Circuit’s decision itself was an independent custody order. Unlike the appellate order discussed in a prior case, the Second Circuit had not directed that its mandate issue immediately or instructed the district court to vacate Jordan’s release orders.

Because the district court found that it lacked authority to change the orders, it did not reach Jordan’s alternative argument concerning the Hilton factors.

Disposition

The court denied Lamanna’s motion. The clerk was directed to close the motion on the docket.