Duarte Palacios v. Superintendent
- Louis Stanton
- 1:25-cv-02411
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Duartepalacios v. Superintendent, Judge Stanton denied a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice because state remedies had not been exhausted.
Leopoldo Duartepalacios, whose federal custody challenge was denied without prejudice, and the Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, the respondent.
What happened
Duartepalacios v. Superintendent concerns Leopoldo Duartepalacios’s petition for federal review under a law that allows challenges to state-court custody decisions. The judgment identifies the respondent as the superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility.
The court denied the petition without prejudice because Duartepalacios had not yet exhausted his state-court remedies. This allows him to file a new petition after completing that state process. The court also said that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The judgment is dated July 15, 2025, and the supplied case information identifies Judge Louis Stanton. The judgment states that its reasons appear in the court’s July 14, 2025 Order, which is not included in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Duarte Palacios v. Superintendent · No. 1:25-cv-02411
- Louis Stanton
- July 15, 2025
Background
Leopoldo Duartepalacios filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal procedure for challenging state-court custody. The respondent is identified in the caption as the Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility. The judgment refers to the court’s July 14, 2025 Order for the reasons supporting the decision, but that Order is not included in the provided opinion text.
Ruling
The court denied the § 2254 petition without prejudice because Duartepalacios had not exhausted his state-court remedies. The judgment states that he may file a new § 2254 petition after exhausting those remedies.
The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Effect
The judgment did not bar Duartepalacios from filing a new § 2254 petition after exhaustion of state remedies. The provided text does not explain which state remedies remained available or identify the underlying custody claim. Judge Louis Stanton is identified in the supplied case information; the judgment itself was entered by the clerk’s office.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.