Mayorga v. Miller
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-08714
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Mayorga v. Miller, Judge Krause ordered pro se petitioner Walter E. Mayorga to resubmit his complete petition because page five was missing.
Walter E. Mayorga must provide a complete copy of his petition or explain why he cannot. The order also directs the Clerk of Court to mail him a copy of the order.
What happened
In Mayorga v. Miller, Walter E. Mayorga filed a petition challenging his state-court custody. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York from the Eastern District of New York.
After the transfer, the court noticed that page five was missing from the filed copy of Mayorga’s petition. The court said that page likely contained his first stated basis for relief.
Judge Krause ordered Mayorga to send the court a complete copy or explain why he could not do so. The order did not decide whether Mayorga was entitled to relief and said resubmitting the petition would not open a new case.
The detailed version
- Mayorga v. Miller · No. 7:22-cv-08714
- Nelson Roman
- Nov. 3, 2022
Background
Walter E. Mayorga, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his custody under a New York state-court judgment. The case had been transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York.
Issue
The court discovered that page five was missing from the copy of Mayorga’s petition in the case file. The court stated that the missing page appeared likely to contain Mayorga’s first asserted ground for relief. The available petition pages included other asserted grounds, but the order did not evaluate those claims.
Ruling
Judge Krause directed Mayorga to resubmit a complete copy of his petition to the Southern District of New York. If he could not provide a complete copy, he was directed to write to the court explaining why. The court stated that resubmitting the petition would not open a new case or create additional procedural obligations; the purpose was simply to obtain a complete copy. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Mayorga.
What the ruling did not decide
The order did not grant or deny the petition, address the merits of Mayorga’s custody challenge, or rule on any of his asserted grounds for relief. It was an administrative and procedural order concerning the incomplete filing.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.