Pierce v. United States
- P. Castel
- 1:18-cv-02412
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pierce v. United States, Judge Castel denied an appeal certificate and fee-free appeal status to Earl Pierce.
Earl Pierce, whose certificate of appealability was denied and whose request to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Pierce v. United States, the order concerns Earl Pierce’s appeal from the court’s May 15, 2024 order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The court found that Pierce had not substantially shown that a constitutional right was denied. It therefore ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Judge P. Kevin Castel also certified that any appeal from the May 15 order would not be taken in good faith. This order addressed appeal-related requirements rather than the underlying § 2255 claims.
The detailed version
- Pierce v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-02412
- P. Castel
- June 10, 2024
Background
Earl Pierce was the defendant in a criminal case and the movant in a related civil case under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The order refers to the court’s earlier Opinion and Order dated May 15, 2024, which denied Pierce’s § 2255 motion. The present order addresses whether Pierce could obtain a certificate of appealability and proceed with an appeal without paying filing fees.
Rulings
The court stated that Pierce had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. As a result, it ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue regarding the denial of his § 2255 motion.
The court separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the May 15, 2024 Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Disposition and Classification
The order denied a certificate of appealability and denied fee-free appeal status. It did not decide the underlying § 2255 claims in this order. The classification is procedural because the court ruled on appeal-related requirements rather than reaching the merits of the underlying motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.