Russell v. United States
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-07915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Russell v. United States, Judge Gardephe’s text does not clearly show whether the requested motion to strike was granted or denied.
Donnell Russell and the United States of America
What happened
In Russell v. United States, Donnell Russell asked the Southern District of New York to strike a response opposing a filing by federal prosecutors.
Russell said he needed more time to add important facts and properly format his submission. He also said he was not trained in law and requested other relief the court considered fair.
The text is marked “SO ORDERED,” but the available opinion does not clearly state what the court ordered. Judge Paul Gardephe’s specific disposition of the motion cannot be determined from the text provided.
The detailed version
- Russell v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-07915
- Paul Gardephe
- May 7, 2024
Background
Donnell Russell filed a motion asking the court to strike a response opposing briefing statements by United States prosecutors. The filing referred to a response submitted on May 4, 2024, and said additional time was needed to include critical facts and use the proper format.
The filing identifies Russell as the plaintiff and the United States of America as the defendant. It also refers to a related criminal case, No. 20-CR-00538 (PGG). Russell stated that he was not schooled in law and requested the court’s consideration.
Requested relief
Russell asked the court to strike the identified response and to provide any other relief the court considered fair.
Disposition
The text includes the words “SO ORDERED,” but the ruling itself is not legible or otherwise stated in the material provided. It is therefore unclear whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the motion. No specific disposition is reported here.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.