Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 2, 2025

Jenkins v. Lilley

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:23-cv-09613
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jenkins v. Lilley, Judge Woods denied Jenkins’s request to pause the closed case after untimely objections to a habeas recommendation.

Who this affects

Terrell Jenkins’s petition had already been denied, and this order denied his later request to pause the closed case and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. Superintendent Lynn Lilley remained the judgment winner.

What happened

In Jenkins v. Lilley, the court had recommended denying Terrell Jenkins’s petition under a federal law allowing challenges to state-court convictions. Jenkins received an extension until June 16, 2025, to object to that recommendation.

The court received no objection by the deadline. It adopted the recommendation on June 24, entered judgment for Superintendent Lynn Lilley on June 25, and closed the case. Jenkins later submitted objections, which he mailed after the deadline, and asked to pause the case so he could return to state court to pursue issues involving confrontation and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court ruled that Jenkins had waived his right to object because his objections were late and denied his request to pause the case because judgment had already been entered. Judge Gregory H. Woods also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jenkins v. Lilley · No. 1:23-cv-09613
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
July 2, 2025

Background

Terrell Jenkins filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure for challenging a state-court judgment or custody. On May 19, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a report and recommendation recommending that the court deny the petition and dismiss the action. The recommendation gave the parties 14 days to submit written objections and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object and prevent appellate review.

Jenkins requested a 14-day extension. The court granted the request and extended his deadline to June 16, 2025. The court again warned that a late objection would waive the right to object.

Objections and Request to Pause the Case

The court received no objection by the extended deadline. On June 24, 2025, it adopted the report and recommendation in full and denied Jenkins’s petition. Judgment was entered for Superintendent Lynn Lilley on June 25, 2025, and the case was closed.

The court later received Jenkins’s objections on June 27. Jenkins had mailed them on June 20, after the June 16 deadline. The court therefore found that the objections were untimely and that Jenkins had waived his right to object.

The court also received a June 18 letter in which Jenkins requested a stay in abeyance, meaning a pause in the case, so he could return to state court to exhaust issues concerning confrontation and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court stated that judgment had already been entered and that the case was closed.

Ruling

The court denied Jenkins’s request for a stay in abeyance. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jenkins permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The clerk was directed to mail Jenkins a copy of the order. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.