HALL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 1:2022cv05299 - Document 6 (D.N.J. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER TO ANSWER directing the United States to electronically file and serve an answer, responding to the allegations and grounds of Petitioner's 2255 Motion, within 45 days of the date of this order. The answer shall addres s the merits of each claim raised as well as the timeliness of the motion. Petitioner may serve and file a reply to the United States' answer within 45 days after the date of its filing. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 12/21/2022. (ssp, n.m. )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HALL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Doc. 6 Case 1:22-cv-05299-NLH Document 6 Filed 12/21/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MICHAEL HALL, JR., 1:22-cv-5299 (NLH) Petitioner, MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER TO ANSWER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. APPEARANCES: Michael Hall, Jr. 71595-050 USP Lee - U.S. Penitentiary P.O. Box 305 Jonesville, VA 24263 Petitioner pro se HILLMAN, District Judge WHEREAS, Petitioner Michael Hall, Jr., filed a motion to correct, vacate, or set aside his federal sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, see ECF No. 1; and WHEREAS, the Court sent Petitioner a notice and order informing Petitioner of his rights under United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999) and asking him how he would like to proceed, ECF No. 4; and WHEREAS, the Notice was returned to the Court on September 19, 2022, ECF No. 5. The Clerk resent the Notice to Petitioner Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-05299-NLH Document 6 Filed 12/21/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 60 on November 7, 2022. This second mailing was not returned to the Court; and WHEREAS, Petitioner has not submitted a response to the Court. The Court will therefore review the § 2255 motion as filed; and WHEREAS, the Court having reviewed the motion and concluded that an answer from the United States is warranted, THEREFORE, IT IS on this 21st day of December, 2022 ORDERED that within forty-five (45) days of the date of the entry of this Order, the United States shall electronically file and serve an answer to the § 2255 Motion; and it is further ORDERED that the answer shall respond to the allegations and grounds of the Motion and shall adhere to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings; and it is further ORDERED that the answer shall address the merits of each claim raised in the Motion as well as whether the Motion is timely; and it is further ORDERED that, where the Petition appears to be untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, within forty-five (45) days of the date this Order is filed, Respondent may file a Motion to Dismiss on timeliness grounds only, provided that the motion: (1) attaches exhibits that evince all relevant court filing dates; (2) contains legal argument discussing pertinent timeliness law; and (3) 2 Case 1:22-cv-05299-NLH Document 6 Filed 12/21/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 61 demonstrates that an Answer to the merits is unnecessary; and it is further ORDERED that the answer shall contain an index of exhibits; and it is further ORDERED that if the answer refers to briefs or transcripts, orders, and other documents from prior proceedings, then the United States shall serve and file them with the answer; and it is further ORDERED that Petitioner may serve and file a reply to the answer within forty-five (45) days after the answer is filed; and it is further ORDERED that any request to deviate from this Order to Answer shall be made by motion; and it is finally ORDERED that the Clerks shall send a copy of this Order to Petitioner by regular mail. s/ Noel L. Hillman NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. At Camden, New Jersey 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
