Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 22, 2025

Madrid v. Miller

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-11026
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Madrid v. Miller, Judge Swain dismissed Madrid’s petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.

Who this affects

The order dismissed Jose Icu Madrid’s petition without prejudice and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal-related fees. The opinion does not describe any additional effect on Supt. Mark Miller.

What happened

In Madrid v. Miller, Jose Icu Madrid was given 60 days to file an amended petition after an October 21, 2024 order. The court warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal, but Madrid did not file the amended petition.

The court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. It also said that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition did not substantially show a denial of a constitutional right.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain further denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Madrid v. Miller · No. 1:23-cv-11026
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 22, 2025

Background

On October 21, 2024, the court granted Petitioner Jose Icu Madrid permission to file an amended petition within 60 days. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Madrid did not file an amended petition.

Ruling

The court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling, although the opinion does not describe what further steps would be required.

Appeal-related rulings

The court stated that the petition made no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right and therefore ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is required for the type of appeal addressed by the court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. Finally, the court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.