In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive Patreon

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Oct 20 – A thirty-one year old man accused by the government of distributing pornographic images of infants and bragging that he was grooming an 11 year old boy had been freed on bond to his mother's house in Freehold, New Jersey, as exclusively reported by Inner City Press.

  On September 3, 2019 Bryan Pivnick's pre-trial freedom was ended by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge P. Kevin Castel.

 The next day in the public docket was a trial set for January 28, 2020. On January 16, this was listed in PACER: "19-cr-00464-PKC-1 USA v. Pivnick   Pretrial Conference Matthew Daniel Myers representing Bryan Pivnick (Defendant) Thomas John Wright representing USA (Plaintiff) ."

  But when Inner City Press went, Pivnick was not there. Inner City Press was politely told that Pivnick had pleaded guilty.

  And on June 15, 2021, Pivnick came up for sentencing, in person, with no call-in line. Inner City Press went. Pivnick's lawyer said he was abused for 11 years by a now-dead great uncle.

 But Judge Castel, when at least he spoke, read word for work (with some "f-words" as replacement) from Pivnick's Telegram messages about turning the 11 year old, and that images he had, of infants debased.

The government asked for 17 years. Judge Castel said that might be too much, but arrived at a sentence of twelve years, followed by ten years of supervised release. His lawyer said he will be appealing.

  On June 17 his lawyer asked that Pivnick be designated to to FMC Devens, including because "that facility is well-equipped to address crimes involving child pornography."

On June 22, 201 Judge Castel endorsed the request. So Fort Devens it will be. For 12 years (or less, for "good time").

Docketed on August 25, 2022 is a 23 page pro se submission by Pivnik, asking to be released because "the US District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear or entered judgment because the alleged crime is not cognizable on the land upon which it was alleged to have occurred." There is a stand-by counsel in Vermont listed.

But with no response, a second Pivnick motion was docketed on December 13, 2022, two pages, about jurisdiction and the $5,000 fine under the Judge for Victims of Trafficking Act.

Jump cut to March 20, 2025 when into the docket went Pivnik's boilerplate three-page letter saying that he is a "sovereign individual" and asking for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis."

Then docketed on September 17 another memo, arguing that The Defendant BRYAN PIVNICK is a legal fiction distinct from the living man, Bryan Adam Pivnick.

On October 20, Judge Castel ruled "ORDER as to Bryan Pivnick. Movant, who is incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey and proceeds pro se, was convicted upon his guilty plea in United States v. Pivnick, No. 19-cr-0464 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2021), aff'd, No. 21-1675, 2023 WL 3563030 (2d Cir. May 19, 2023). He transmitted a document to the Court's Chambers on March 17, 2025 (docketed March 31, 2025) asserting that the "judg[]ment rendered in the above referenced proceeding is void ab initio." He asserted that the United States lack the proper standing to imitate a proceeding "against my natural-born sovereign self...." In an order dated April 10, 2025, the Court notified Movant that it intended to construe his application as a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and granted him an opportunity to withdraw the application or file an amended Section 2255 motion, including all of his grounds for relief. In response, on May 15, 2025, Movant wrote to the Court indicating that: (1) he did not intend to proceed under Section 2255; (2) he wished to bring a petition for a writ of error coram nobis; and (3) he requested an extension of time to respond. (ECF 5.) By letter dated June 4, 2025, he repeated these requests. In a July 11, 2025 Order (ECF 7), Movant was advised that a petition for a writ of coram nobis is an extraordinary "remedy of last resort." Fleming v. United States, 146 F.3d 88, 89-90 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam). "A petition for a writ of coram nobis provides a way to collaterally attack a criminal conviction for a person,... who is no longer 'in custody' and therefore cannot seek habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241." Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342, 345 (2013). To receive coram nobis relief, a petitioner must show "that (1) there are circumstances compelling such action to achieve justice, (2) sound reasons exist for failure to seek appropriate earlier relief, and (3) the petitioner continues to suffer legal consequences from his conviction that may be remedied by granting of the writ." Doe v. United States, 915 F.3d 905, 910 (2d Cir. 2019).2 See also Kaminski v. United States, 339 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[C]ollateral relief from non-custodial punishments may be available to prisoners through the use of extraordinary writs such as coram nobis"). But according to public information of the Bureau of Prisons, Movant remains incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix with an anticipated release date of November 15, 2029, though he does not use this as his address of record for this action. His status as a person in custody, according to public information from the Bureau of Prisons, was noted in the July 11 Order and Movant has done nothing in his subsequent filings to persuasively rebut this fact. The July 11 Order nevertheless granted Movant's request for an extension of time to file an amended pleading that includes all of the grounds on which he challenges his conviction. Movant was advised that he must file his amended pleading within 60 days of the date of the July 11, 2025 Order. On July 29, 2025, the undersigned received a document from Movant styled as "ORGANIC WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE LIKENESS OF AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS UNDER THE ORGANIC CONSTITUTION OF 1787 INVOKING THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE COMMON LAW." The Court has reviewed the content of the submission and not merely its title. The July 29 submission appears to be a collateral attack on Movant's conviction made while the Movant is in custody. As noted below, Movant's collateral attack, if treated as a section 2255 motion, is likely time-barred. But if the relief sought would be most appropriately available under section 2255, a petitioner may not circumvent the limitations of section 2255 by recasting his application as a writ of coram nobis or habeas corpus, absent extraordinary circumstances not alleged here. See United States v. Henry, 205 F.3d 1325 (2d Cir. 2000) (summary order) ("'[w]here a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling,'...even if the petitioner may be procedurally barred from making use of the applicable statute...."). Whether measured from his first filing on March 31, 2025 or any later date, Movant's application appears beyond the one-year limitation measured from when the judgment became final. 28 U. S.C. § 2255(f)(1). Because Movant appealed his judgment, it did not become final until the time for filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari expired. A petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed within ninety (90) days after entry of judgment by the Court of Appeals. Rule 13(1), Supreme Court Rules. The mandate was issued by the Court of Appeals on July 25, 2023. Thus, unless a petition for certiorari was filed by October 23, 2023, the judgment became final on that date. In a document titled "Notice to this Court Regarding Timeliness of Habeas Corpus Filing and Procedural History" (25 cv 2810, ECF 9), Movant attaches correspondence with the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court reflecting an attempt to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court is unable to locate any petition for a writ of certiorari accepted for filing by the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court. He essentially argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling by reason of his belief that he had filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court will require a merits response from the government to Movant's July 29, 2025 motion addressing (1) whether that motion or petition ought to be construed as a habeas petition, a writ of coram nobis or a section 2255 motion, (2) whether it is timely and (3) assuming that it is a timely, should it be granted. The government's response is due by December 10, 2025. Movant may reply by January 12, 2026 and the government may reply by January 27, 2026. Because Movant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. SO ORDERED.

Inner City Press will continue to cover this case.

  Prior to the plea, with in the courtroom gallery Pivnick's mother and step-father, Inner City Press and the mother of the child at issue, Judge Castel denied Pivnick's motion to suppress his pre-arrest statement. Judge Castel said there was no way Pivnick, in his own apartment, was subject to a custodian interview requiring the reading of Miranda rights.

  Then Judge Castel denied Pivnick's notion concerning his phone, find among other things exigent circumstances: Pivnick could have deleted the Telegram app on his phone. (This happened recently in a 911 health care information fraud mass indictment: a defendant asked for his phone to look for a contact, and deleted his WhatsApp and all the messages on it).

  So now, the trial. Inner City Press will continue to cover this case.

   Back on September 3, Pivnik arrived for a pre trial conference, as in July, in a blue blazer accompanied by his mother and step father. His lawyer Matthew Myers had filed a motion to suppress his cell phone with child pornography and boasts of grooming on it. Myers asked that the government not respond yet to his motion, since he has a mitigation brief pending.

  Then it turned. Pivnik has tested positive for meth, five days after the last conference in the case at which as on September 3 Inner City Press was the only media present.

  Myers tried to focus on the chain of custody of Pivnik's urine, sent to an outside lab after the person administered the test found that the sample was cold, and not as expected warm.

  Judge Castel grew frustrated at the urine argument, and then began to ask about the underlying complaint, which Inner City Press covered at the time of presentment in the SDNY Magistrates Court. Pivnik bragged he was grooming the 11 year old brother of his boyfriend James.

  Myers, perhaps sensing the danger to his client, said that James' mother Geraldine Chapman was at the presentment in the Mag Court. That was true - but as Inner City Press remembers is, Ms. Chapman while praising Pivnik for his work on a musical drama said she would never again allow her younger son to see him.

  As Judge Castel read from the complaint, including interpreting "hee hee" as a devilish laugh, an SDNY Court Security Officer came in, then another. Clearly, remand was now a possibility.

  Finally Judge Castel asked for final arguments from Assistant US Attorney Thomas John Wright, who asked for remand, and Myers, who said he had no more to say.  Then after a silence in which Castel flipped through papers, the decision was reached: remand.

 The two Court Security Officers surrounded Pivnik. As another case, that of Craig Smith represented by Bennett Epstein, was called the CSOs allowed Pivnik to hug his mother, who was crying. He sat in the back until two U.S. Marshals arrived. He took off his blazer.

 More on Patreon here.

  On May 30 Bryan Pivnick was brought in foot shackles before SDNY Magistrate Judge James L. Cott after 6 pm. Assistant US Attorney Thomas Wright, who later confirmed the spelling of Pivnick's name to Inner City Press, argued for detention.

  He described Telegram messages on February 10, 2019 in which Pivnick said he was "getting close to the 11 y/o bro" of his boyfriend. The same 11 year old was found in Pivnick's apartment when he was arrested.

Now there's talk of an appeal to the Second Circuit. Inner City Press and @SDNYLIVE will stay on the case.

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2020 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for