Jenkins v. Lilley
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-09613
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jenkins v. Lilley, Judge Woods denied Jenkins’s habeas petition, denied appeal fee status and a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.
Terrell Jenkins’s habeas petition was denied; his request to appeal without paying filing fees and his request for a certificate of appealability were also denied. The case was closed.
What happened
In Jenkins v. Lilley, Terrell Jenkins sought a court order challenging his custody under a federal habeas law. The judgment refers to an earlier June 24, 2025 order for the reasons behind the decision, but that order is not included here.
The court denied Jenkins’s petition. It also denied him permission to appeal without paying filing fees and denied a certificate of appealability, which is required for many federal habeas appeals. The case was closed.
Judge Gregory Woods is identified in the case information supplied with the opinion. The judgment was dated June 25, 2025, and does not itself explain whether the petition was denied on the merits or on a procedural ground.
The detailed version
- Jenkins v. Lilley · No. 1:23-cv-09613
- Gregory Woods
- June 25, 2025
Background
Terrell Jenkins filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The respondent was Superintendent Lynn Lilley, identified in the judgment as superintendent of Eastern NY Correctional Facility. The judgment states that the reasons for the decision appear in the Court’s June 24, 2025 Order, which is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court denied Jenkins’s habeas petition. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied Jenkins permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The court also denied a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, stating that Jenkins had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.
Disposition
The judgment states that the case is closed. Because the June 24 order is not provided, the available text does not show whether the habeas petition was denied after consideration of the underlying claims or on a procedural ground.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.