Ames v. Prosecutor
- Rearden
- 1:25-cv-00455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Willie Ames v. The Prosecutor, Judge Rearden granted dismissal of Ames’s habeas petition because he was no longer confined under the challenged conviction.
The ruling ended Willie Ames’s federal challenge to his state convictions. The petition was dismissed after the court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation based on the custody requirement and Ames’s failure to object.
What happened
In Willie Ames v. The Prosecutor, Willie Ames challenged his state convictions for assault and aggravated harassment as hate crimes. He claimed prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, withheld evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. He filed the petition without a lawyer and stated that he was no longer confined.
The state’s attorney general moved to dismiss, arguing that Ames did not meet the requirement that he be in custody under the state judgment when he filed the petition. A magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. Ames did not respond to the motion or object to that recommendation.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and granted the motion to dismiss the petition. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Ames v. Prosecutor · No. 1:25-cv-00455
- Rearden
- Oct. 31, 2025
Background
Willie Ames filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his July 12, 2019 state-court convictions for assault in the second degree as a hate crime, assault in the third degree as a hate crime, and aggravated harassment in the second degree. He alleged that the prosecutor committed misconduct in obtaining the indictment, presented perjured testimony, withheld evidence required to be disclosed, and that his trial lawyer was ineffective. Ames stated that he was no longer confined.
The respondent moved to dismiss on the ground that Ames did not satisfy the custody requirement for a federal habeas petition when he filed it. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. Ames did not respond to the motion, did not respond to the magistrate judge’s order directing a response, and did not object to the Report and Recommendation.
Court’s analysis
Because no objections were filed, Judge Rearden reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues. The court explained that failing to make timely objections after receiving clear notice generally waives further judicial review. The court nevertheless reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error, describing it as well reasoned and supported by the facts and law. The opinion adopted the recommendation without independently discussing the merits of Ames’s allegations about prosecutorial misconduct, withheld evidence, or ineffective assistance.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. The Clerk was directed to dismiss the petition and close the case. The court did not issue a certificate of appealability because Ames had not made a 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 opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.