Pedro Jimenez v. Stacie Bennett, Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PEDRO JIMENEZ, Plaintiff, v. ORDER OF REFERRAL STACIE BENNETT, Superintendent of 24 Civ. 5753 (ER) Sullivan Correctional Facility, Defendant.

RAMOS, D.J.

Pedro Jimenez, an incarcerated defendant proceeding pro se, filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 29, 2024. Doc. 1. �e Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker for a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on August 7, 2024. After briefing, Magistrate Judge Parker issued the R&R on September 11, 2025. Doc. 17. �e R&R recommended that the petition be denied, and advised Jimenez that he had “seventeen days . . . from service of the [R&R] to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. at 12. Magistrate Judge Parker further directed the Clerk of Court to mail Jimenez a copy of the R&R. According to the docket, the R&R was mailed to Jimenez the following day, on September 12, 2025. �e deadline to file any objection to the R&R was therefore September 29, 2025.

On September 23, 2025, Jimenez filed a 15-page brief styled “Reasons for Granting Leave to Supplemental (sic) Argument.” Doc. 18. While filed with the Court on September 23, 2025, the supplemental brief was signed by Jimenez on September 15, 2025. Id. at 13.

It is apparent to the Court that the brief was in fact meant to supplement his arguments in favor of the habeas petition, and not a response to the R&R. �is is based on the following factors: (1) it is unlikely that Jimenez, who is incarcerated, had received the R&R by September 15, 2025, only three days after it was mailed to him; (2) the brief makes no mention of the R&R; and (3) a reading of the brief makes clear that Jimenez intended to bring to the Court’s attention two cases that had only recently been issued,! which he argues supports his petition.

The Court therefore finds that Jimenez attempted to supplement his prior submissions in support of the petition prior to the time he received the R&R. Accordingly, and given his pro se status, the Court hereby: (1) REFERS the matter back to Magistrate Judge Parker so that she may determine in the first instance whether the supplemental authority provided by Jimenez requires an outcome different from that in the R&R; and (2) ADJOURNS the time for Jimenez to object to the R&R and any amended R&R until further order of the Court.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2025 New York, New York Edgardo Rambs, US.D.J. ' Hernandez v. McIntosh, 146 F.4th 142 (2d Cir. 2025), decided July 21, 2025, and Ganthier v. Superintendent Green soos onal Facility, No. 23 Civ. 414 (NRM), 2025 WL 2452386 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2025), decided August