Feliz v. Montegari
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-08635
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Juan Feliz v. Alfred Montegari, Judge Rearden denied Feliz’s petition challenging his state conviction after he failed to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Juan Feliz’s federal challenge to his state-court conviction was denied, and the case was closed. Alfred Montegari was the named respondent.
What happened
Juan Feliz asked a federal court to review his state-court conviction, entered after he pleaded guilty to one count of Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree. He argued that the state court lacked authority to accept his plea and sentence him, that he was not held for grand-jury action before waiving indictment, and that his lawyer was ineffective.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. Feliz received extra time to object but filed no objections. Because there were no timely objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation only for obvious error and found none.
Judge Rearden adopted the recommendation in its entirety and denied the petition. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, directed the Clerk to dismiss the petition, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Feliz v. Montegari · No. 1:22-cv-08635
- Rearden
- Oct. 27, 2025
Background
Juan Feliz, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his state-court conviction. The conviction followed his June 22, 2016 guilty plea to one count of Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree. Feliz sought to vacate the conviction based on three grounds: he argued that the state court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to accept a plea and impose a sentence for a felony; that he was not held for grand-jury action before waiving indictment; and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Report and Recommendation
The petition was referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. On November 3, 2023, Judge Gorenstein recommended denying the petition in its entirety. The recommendation warned that any objections had to be filed within the stated period and that failing to object could prevent further judicial review. The district court later extended Feliz’s objection deadline to December 15, 2023. Feliz did not file objections by that date or afterward.
When a party does not timely object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error. Clear error means an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court stated that Feliz waived further judicial review by failing to object, but it independently reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error. The opinion did not separately analyze the underlying conviction-related claims; it adopted the recommendation based on that review.
Ruling
Judge Rearden adopted Judge Gorenstein’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A habeas petition is a request for federal review of a person’s custody under a state conviction. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Feliz had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to dismiss the petition, mail Feliz a copy of the order, and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.