Ortiz v. Warden FCC Coleman Low
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-08722
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ortiz v. United States, Judge Castel designated Ortiz’s release application as a federal post-conviction motion and gave him 60 days to withdraw it.
Luis Gomez Ortiz, who filed the application without a lawyer, and the United States, which may later be directed to respond if the application remains designated as a Section 2255 motion.
What happened
In Ortiz v. United States, Luis Gomez Ortiz, who was incarcerated at FCC Coleman Low and represented himself, challenged the legality of his sentence through an application labeled as a request under a federal detention law.
The court ruled that the application should be treated as a motion under a different federal law used to challenge a federal sentence. Ortiz may notify the court within 60 days if he wants to withdraw it; otherwise, it will remain treated that way, and the government may later be ordered to respond. The court did not require a response at this time.
Judge P. Kevin Castel also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied Ortiz permission to appeal without paying filing fees, stating that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ortiz v. Warden FCC Coleman Low · No. 1:23-cv-08722
- P. Castel
- Oct. 17, 2023
Background
Luis Gomez Ortiz filed, without a lawyer, an application labeled as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He was incarcerated at FCC Coleman Low and challenged the legality of his sentence. The opinion does not decide whether the sentence was lawful.
Designation as a Section 2255 Motion
The court held that the application should be designated as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 is generally the procedure used by a federal prisoner to challenge a federal conviction or sentence. The court gave Ortiz 60 days to notify the court in writing if he wanted to withdraw the application instead of pursuing relief under Section 2255. If he does not provide that notice, the application will remain designated as a Section 2255 motion.
The court stated that, if the application remains designated as a Section 2255 motion, it will issue an order directing the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to file an answer or other response. No answer was required at this stage.
Appeal-Related Rulings
The court stated that Ortiz had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied and therefore would not issue a certificate of appealability. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Disposition
The court designated the application as a motion under Section 2255. It did not reach the merits of Ortiz’s challenge to his sentence. Judge P. Kevin Castel signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.