Miller v. United States District Court
Mark Miller, Superintendent v. United States District Court, Southern District of New York
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-05932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mark Miller v. United States District Court, Judge Karas dismissed the petition, adopted the recommendation, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.
The petitioner and Mark Miller, Superintendent; the petition was dismissed, no certificate of appealability was issued, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Mark Miller, Superintendent v. United States District Court, Southern District of New York, the court adopted a prior recommendation in full and dismissed the petition.
The judgment does not explain why the petition was dismissed. It states that the court relied on its September 9, 2025 Order and a June 9, 2025 Report and Recommendation.
Judge Kenneth Karas’s court also said that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petitioner had not substantially shown a constitutional violation. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Miller v. United States District Court · No. 7:24-cv-05932
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 10, 2025
Ruling
The court adopted in its entirety a June 9, 2025 Report and Recommendation, relying on the reasons stated in the court’s September 9, 2025 Order. The court then dismissed the petition.
Certificate of Appealability and Appeal Certification
The court stated that the petitioner had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It therefore said that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is required for an appeal from certain habeas decisions.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith. The case was closed.
Information Not Stated
The judgment provided does not explain the basis for dismissing the petition or identify the claims addressed in the petition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.