Terrell v. Lee
- Andrew Carter
- 1:19-cv-05098
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Terrell v. Lee, Judge Carter denied Terrell’s habeas petition and closed the case.
The petitioner, Matrell Terrell, whose habeas petition was denied; Superintendent William Lee was the respondent. The case was closed, and the court certified that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith.
What happened
In Terrell v. Lee, the petitioner asked the Southern District of New York for a court order addressing his custody through a habeas petition. The provided judgment does not include the reasons for the decision, referring instead to an Opinion and Order dated February 18, 2025.
The court denied the petition. It also certified that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith, and the case was closed.
Judge Andrew Carter is identified in the case information supplied with the judgment. Because the underlying Opinion and Order is not provided, this judgment alone does not show whether the court denied the petition after deciding its substance or on a procedural ground.
The detailed version
- Terrell v. Lee · No. 1:19-cv-05098
- Andrew Carter
- Feb. 19, 2025
Disposition
The judgment states that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. Habeas corpus is a procedure through which a person asks a court to review the lawfulness of custody or detention. The judgment gives no additional explanation and incorporates the reasons stated in a separate Opinion and Order dated February 18, 2025, which was not provided here.
Appeal Certification
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith. The judgment then states that the case is closed.
Scope of the Available Record
The supplied text is a judgment, not the referenced Opinion and Order. It therefore does not establish whether the petition was denied after the court reached the habeas claim’s merits or because of a threshold or procedural issue. The petitioner is identified in the caption as Matrell Terrell, and the respondent as Superintendent William Lee.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.