Linares v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04032
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Linares v. United States, Judge Swain dismissed Linares’s post-conviction motion after he failed to file the required amendment.
Yassar J. Linares’s federal post-conviction motion was dismissed. The United States was the respondent. Linares was also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Yassar J. Linares filed a motion asking the court to provide relief under a federal post-conviction statute. The court had previously ordered him to file an amended motion within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal.
Linares did not file an amended motion or otherwise contact the court. The earlier order had asked him to explain why the motion should not be dismissed because he was not in custody under the related conviction and because the motion appeared to have been filed too late.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the motion for the reasons stated in the earlier order. She also denied Linares permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Linares v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-04032
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 4, 2022
Background
Yassar J. Linares, the movant, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a federal procedure for challenging a federal conviction or sentence. On June 27, 2022, the court ordered Linares to file an amended motion within 60 days. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.
The earlier order directed Linares to show why the motion should not be dismissed because he was not in custody under the related conviction and because the motion appeared to be untimely. The October 4 order states that Linares did not file an amended motion and did not otherwise communicate with the court.
Ruling
The court dismissed the § 2255 motion for the reasons stated in the June 27, 2022 order. The opinion does not separately analyze those reasons in the October 4 order; it incorporates the earlier order’s explanation.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Linares permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to issue judgment. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Classification
This is a procedural order. The court dismissed the post-conviction motion based on threshold issues identified in the earlier order—custody and timeliness—without deciding the underlying legal claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.