Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 2, 2024

Greene Johnson v. United States

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:24-cv-00872
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Greene Johnson v. United States, Judge Ho denied Stan J. Caterbone’s untimely request to file an amicus brief.

Who this affects

Stan J. Caterbone, whose motion to file an amicus brief was denied and whose status as a movant the clerk was directed to terminate.

What happened

In Greene Johnson v. United States, pro se movant Stan J. Caterbone asked to file an amicus brief, meaning a brief from someone who is not a party to help the court. The order refers to the request as having been filed in Aziz v. United States of America.

The court said that amicus filings are generally allowed only when they may help the court by providing useful information not available from the parties. It found Caterbone’s request untimely because there were no issues before the court.

Judge Ho denied Caterbone’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief. The clerk was directed to terminate Caterbone as a movant.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Greene Johnson v. United States · No. 1:24-cv-00872
Judge
Ho
Date
May 2, 2024

Background

The opinion states that pro se movant Stan J. Caterbone filed a motion on November 28, 2023, seeking permission to file an amicus curiae brief. An amicus curiae brief is a filing by someone who is not a party, offered to provide information or arguments that may assist the court. The opinion identifies the motion as having been filed in Aziz v. United States of America, Case No. 24-CV-874. It also states that the referenced case was transferred to the Southern District of New York and reassigned to Judge Ho on February 6, 2024.

Court’s Reasoning

The court explained that district courts have broad discretion to grant or deny permission to appear as an amicus. It said the usual purpose of an amicus filing is to aid the court and offer insights not available from the parties. The court concluded that Caterbone’s motion was untimely because there were no issues before the court, meaning the proposed brief could not help the court under that rationale.

Disposition

The court denied Stan J. Caterbone’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief. The clerk was directed to terminate Caterbone as a movant. The order was signed by Dale E. Ho, United States District Judge, and dated May 2, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.