GORDON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Clerk shall re-docket Petitioner's 2255 Motion [Doc. No. 1 in 15cv2686] as an Amended Petition in 14cv6760. ORDERED that the Clerk reopen 14cv6760 and close 15cv2686. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 4/29/2015. (TH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
JAVON GORDON,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
Civ. No. 14-6760 (RBK)
:
v.
:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
Respondent.
:
_________________________________________ :
_________________________________________
JAVON R. GORDON,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
:
:
Respondent.
:
_________________________________________

Civ. No. 15-2686 (RBK)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a motion to vacate, set aside or
correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In Civ. No. 14-6760, this Court
administratively terminated that case as petitioner had failed to file his § 2255 on the proper
updated form. Petitioner was given leave to file his § 2255 motion on the proper form.
Petitioner was subsequently given until April 25, 2015 to file his § 2255 motion on the proper
form. (See Civ. No. 14-6760, Dkt. No. 10.)
On April 15, 2015, this Court received petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct
his sentence and the Clerk docketed it under a new civil docket number, Civ. No. 15-2686.
Petitioner’s motion in Civ. No. 15-2686 challenges the same judgment and sentence that
petitioner is challenging in Civ. No. 14-6760. Thus, it appears clear to the Court that the motion

1

in Civ. No. 15-2686 should be docketed as an amended § 2255 motion in Civ. No. 14-6760
based on the procedural history that only administratively terminated that case with leave to
reopen. C.f. Ching v. United States, 298 F.3d 174, 177 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a § 2255 motion
is filed before adjudication of an initial § 2255 motion is complete, the district court should
construe the second § 2255 motion as a motion to amend the pending § 2255 motion); see also
Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that district court should have
construed pro se habeas petition as a motion to amend pending habeas petition). Once the §
2255 motion is re-docketed as an amended § 2255 motion in Civ. No. 14-6760, the Court will
proceed to screening the amended § 2255 motion pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §
2255 cases.
Accordingly, IT IS this 29th day of April , 2015,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-docket petitioner’s § 2255 motion (Dkt. No. 1.) in Civ.
No. 15-2686 as an amended § 2255 motion in Civ. No. 14-6760; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen Civ. No. 14-6760; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall mark Civ. No. 15-2686 as closed because petitioner’s §
2255 motion in that case has been construed as an amended § 2255 motion in Civ. No. 14-6760
and will be docketed as such; and it is further
ORDERED that the Court will screen the amended § 2255 motion in Civ. No. 14-6760 in
due course pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 cases.

s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge

2