Bruno v. Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility

S.D. New York

Bruno v. Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility

DecidedApril 16, 2024

Docket1:21-cv-06609

StatusUnknown

This text of Bruno v. Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility (Bruno v. Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruno v. Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x JUSTIN BRUNO, : : Petitioner, : 21-CV-6609 (JLR) (OTW) : -against- : ORDER : SUPERINTENDENT, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL : FACILITY, : Respondent. : --------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: On November 21, 2023, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to file his correct address on the docket and reply to Respondent’s answer and memorandum of law opposing his habeas petition by January 26, 2024, or the Court would consider treating Respondent’s motion as unopposed. (ECF 24). It appears that Petitioner did not receive this Order, based on the return mail receipts filed on the docket. It also appears that Petitioner’s period of post-release supervision may have expired on December 24, 2023. Respondent is directed to inform the Court, by Friday, April 26, 2024, whether Petitioner remains subject to post-release supervision. If Petitioner’s post-release supervision has expired, Respondent is further directed to inform the Court whether the petition is now moot. As Respondent stated in its November 20, 2023 letter the Court (ECF 23), the petition will be moot “only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.” Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Where, as here, a petitioner is challenging his underlying criminal conviction, he is entitled to a presumption of “collateral consequences” after his post-release supervision term expires. Nowakowski v. New York, 835 F.3d 210, 218 (2016) (citations omitted). The Clerk of Court and Respondent are hereby directed to serve this Order on

Petitioner’s last known address (as provided in ECF 23), and file proof of service of the same. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ona T. Wang Dated: April 16, 2024 Ona T. Wang New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x JUSTIN BRUNO, : : Petitioner, : 21-CV-6609 (JLR) (OTW) : -against- : ORDER : SUPERINTENDENT, UPSTATE CORRECTIONAL : FACILITY, : Respondent. : --------------------------------------------------------------x ONA T. WANG, United States Magistrate Judge: On November 21, 2023, the Court issued an order directing Petitioner to file his correct address on the docket and reply to Respondent’s answer and memorandum of law opposing his habeas petition by January 26, 2024, or the Court would consider treating Respondent’s motion as unopposed. (ECF 24). It appears that Petitioner did not receive this Order, based on the return mail receipts filed on the docket. It also appears that Petitioner’s period of post-release supervision may have expired on December 24, 2023. Respondent is directed to inform the Court, by Friday, April 26, 2024, whether Petitioner remains subject to post-release supervision. If Petitioner’s post-release supervision has expired, Respondent is further directed to inform the Court whether the petition is now moot. As Respondent stated in its November 20, 2023 letter the Court (ECF 23), the petition will be moot “only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.” Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 57 (1968). Where, as here, a petitioner is challenging his underlying criminal conviction, he is entitled to a presumption of “collateral consequences” after his post-release supervision term expires. Nowakowski v. New York, 835 F.3d 210, 218 (2016) (citations omitted). The Clerk of Court and Respondent are hereby directed to serve this Order on

Petitioner’s last known address (as provided in ECF 23), and file proof of service of the same. SO ORDERED.

/s/ Ona T. Wang Dated: April 16, 2024 Ona T. Wang New York, New York United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bruno v. Superintendent, Upstate Correctional Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruno-v-superintendent-upstate-correctional-facility-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack