Hernandez v. United States
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:23-cv-07775
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hernandez v. United States, Judge Rakoff dismissed the petition with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees.
The petitioner and the United States. The petitioner’s case was dismissed with prejudice, and the petitioner was denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Hernandez v. United States, the court adopted a report and recommendation and dismissed the petition with prejudice. The judgment does not describe the underlying claim or explain the report’s reasoning.
The court also ruled that the petitioner had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. The court further found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith because the claim lacked an arguable legal or factual basis, and it denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
Judge Jed Rakoff is identified in the supplied case information, while the judgment itself is dated September 19, 2024 and was entered by the clerk’s office.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-07775
- Jed Rakoff
- Sept. 19, 2024
What the court decided
The court adopted a Report and Recommendation issued in the case and dismissed the petition with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the same petition. The judgment refers to the court’s September 18, 2024 Order for the reasons supporting the dismissal, but that Order and the Report and Recommendation are not included in the provided text.
Appeal-related rulings
The court found that the petitioner had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It therefore ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. Such a certificate is required for certain appeals from federal constitutional-rights proceedings.
The court also certified that any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith because the petitioner’s claim lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the required court fees.
What is not stated
The provided judgment does not identify the petition’s underlying claim, state whether the dismissal rested on the merits or on a threshold ground, or provide the reasoning from the adopted Report and Recommendation. The classification therefore reflects the limited text provided.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.