Azeez v. John/Jane Doe
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-06028
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Azeez v. Lilly, Judge Karas adopted a recommendation and dismissed Abdool Azeez’s habeas petition without discussing its underlying claims.
Abdool Azeez’s federal petition challenging his state conviction and imprisonment was dismissed; the order also denied a certificate of appealability and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
What happened
Abdool Azeez was convicted of three counts of second-degree rape and received three consecutive seven-year prison terms plus supervised release. After his state appeals were unsuccessful, he filed a federal petition challenging his conviction and imprisonment.
Azeez, who represented himself, raised several claims, including lack of jurisdiction, newly discovered evidence, an allegedly fraudulent indictment, trial-rights violations, a coerced confession, factual innocence, false arrest, fabricated evidence, cruel and unusual punishment, and ineffective assistance of counsel. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition, and no objections were filed.
In Azeez v. Superintendent Lynn Lilly, Judge Kenneth M. Karas reviewed the recommendation for clear error, adopted it in full, and dismissed the petition. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Azeez v. John/Jane Doe · No. 7:22-cv-06028
- Kenneth Karas
- July 1, 2025
Background
Abdool Azeez was convicted on November 14, 2017, of three counts of second-degree rape. On January 9, 2018, he was sentenced to three consecutive seven-year prison terms and ten years of supervised release. His direct appeal was affirmed by the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, and his request for review by the New York Court of Appeals was denied.
Azeez began this federal case in 2022 by submitting a letter. The court initially determined that the letter was not a habeas petition and directed him to file an amended petition. After he did not do so, the action was dismissed without prejudice. The court later granted his request to reopen the case.
Claims and Recommendation
In July 2023, Azeez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a state prisoner to seek federal review of allegedly unlawful custody. Construed broadly, the petition asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction; that new exculpatory evidence had been discovered; that the indictment was fraudulently filed; that he was denied a fair and speedy trial; that his confession was coerced; that he was factually innocent; that he was falsely arrested; that evidence was fabricated; that his imprisonment was unlawful; that his imprisonment was cruel and unusual punishment; and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy. She issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied. A Report and Recommendation is a magistrate judge’s proposed disposition for review by the district judge. Azeez filed no objections.
Ruling
Because no objections were filed, Judge Kenneth M. Karas reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court stated that it found no substantive error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The order itself does not discuss the merits of Azeez’s individual claims.
The court ordered that the petition be dismissed. It also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Azeez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. In addition, the court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Azeez and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.