Kumar v. United States
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-05533
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Kumar v. United States: Judge Clarke adopted the recommendation and denied Kumar’s habeas petition seeking expungement of an incident report.
Suresh Kumar’s habeas petition was denied, and the case was closed; the United States of America and Federal Bureau of Prisons were the respondents.
What happened
In Kumar v. United States, Suresh Kumar asked the court to overturn an incident report through a habeas petition. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition.
Kumar objected, arguing that his administrative appeals involved separate matters and repeating factual arguments from his petition. The court considered his objections even though they were filed late, but found them unpersuasive and too general.
Judge Clarke adopted the recommendation in full and denied the habeas petition. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Kumar and close the case.
The detailed version
- Kumar v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-05533
- Clarke
- Apr. 22, 2025
Background
Suresh Kumar filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asking the court to expunge an incident report. The petition had been referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis, who issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the petition be denied.
Objections
Kumar filed objections on May 30, 2024, after the fourteen-day deadline. The court nevertheless considered them because it found no prejudice from the late filing. Kumar argued that his first and second administrative remedies were independent and concerned different causes and times. The court found that argument inconsistent with his petition, which stated that both remedies arose from the same incident report and sought expungement of that report.
Kumar also repeated factual allegations from his petition and stated generally that the Report and Recommendation was wrong. The court found these objections conclusory and insufficiently specific.
Ruling
The court reviewed the papers, the Report and Recommendation, Kumar’s objections, and the respondents’ opposition. It found the Report and Recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law, adopted it in its entirety, and denied the habeas petition. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Kumar and close the case.
Because the order does not explain the underlying reasons for denying the habeas petition beyond adopting the Report and Recommendation, this summary does not characterize the underlying habeas issue as having been decided on its merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.