Cortez v. Griffin
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-00766
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cortez v. Griffin, Judge Engelmayer denied Cortez’s federal petition, issued a certificate allowing appeal of ineffective-assistance claims, and closed the case.
Paul Cortez’s petition was denied. He received a certificate of appealability only for his Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims, not for the remaining claims.
What happened
In Cortez v. Griffin, the court adopted the earlier report with minor changes and denied Paul Cortez’s federal petition.
The court said Cortez had shown deficiencies in his trial counsel’s performance. It issued a certificate of appealability for his Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance claims but declined to issue one for the rest of his petition.
Judge Paul Engelmayer is identified as the judge in this case. The August 9, 2024 judgment states that the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Cortez v. Griffin · No. 1:18-cv-00766
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 9, 2024
Background
Paul Cortez filed a petition under the federal law governing challenges to state custody. The judgment refers to an Opinion and Order dated August 8, 2024, and says the court adopted the report in that matter, with minor modifications. The supplied text does not include the report or the full Opinion and Order, so it does not provide the underlying facts or the complete reasoning concerning Cortez’s claims.
Ruling
The court denied Cortez’s petition. The judgment specifically states that Cortez established performance deficiencies by his trial counsel and therefore satisfied the standard for a certificate of appealability on his ineffective-assistance claims. A certificate of appealability is a court’s authorization to seek appellate review of specified claims. The court issued the certificate for Cortez’s Sixth Amendment claims but declined to issue one for the balance of the petition.
Disposition
The judgment states that the case is closed. It does not state that the petition was dismissed with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.