McCray v. Anderson
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-02247
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
McCray v. Anderson: Judge Briccetti's court dismissed McCray's sentence challenge as moot and for failure to prosecute.
CERIOUS McCRAY, whose sentence challenge was dismissed as moot and for failure to prosecute; the court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In McCray v. Anderson, CERIOUS McCRAY asked the court to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under a federal law allowing challenges to state-court convictions or sentences. The judgment refers to an earlier Opinion and Order, whose text is not provided here.
The court dismissed the petition as moot and for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). A moot case no longer presents a live dispute, while failure to prosecute means the case was not pursued as required.
Judge Vincent Briccetti's court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- McCray v. Anderson · No. 7:20-cv-02247
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 24, 2024
Background
CERIOUS McCRAY was the petitioner, and ADRIAN H. ANDERSON, identified as Sheriff of Dutchess County Jail, was the respondent. The judgment states that McCray sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The judgment gives the court's ruling and refers to a separate Opinion and Order dated September 24, 2024; that Opinion and Order is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court dismissed the petition as moot and also for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The judgment therefore identifies two grounds for dismissal: the case no longer presented a live dispute, and the petitioner failed to pursue the case as required. The judgment does not provide additional facts explaining either ground.
The court stated that McCray had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it ordered that no certificate of appealability issue. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.