Ventura v. James William Magee
Marquis Jovan Ventura v. James William Magee, Officer of the Court; Beth Beller, District Court Judge; Sara Litman, District Court Judge
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05098
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ventura v. Magee, Judge Swain denied counsel, declined state-law jurisdiction, and denied a fee-free appeal after finding no substantial constitutional showing.
Marquis Jovan Ventura’s request for appointed counsel, possible state-law claims, and ability to pursue an appeal without paying filing fees were affected. The judgment does not resolve the underlying claims against James William Magee, Beth Beller, or Sara Litman on their merits.
What happened
In Marquis Jovan Ventura v. James William Magee, Beth Beller, and Sara Litman, the judgment refers to an earlier November 2, 2025 order. The judgment says the court denied Ventura’s request for a lawyer and declined to hear any state-law claims he might be asserting.
The court also ruled that Ventura had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate allowing an appeal. It further denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Swain’s ruling addressed counsel, state-law jurisdiction, and appeal-related requirements; the judgment does not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
The detailed version
- Ventura v. James William Magee · No. 1:25-cv-05098
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 4, 2025
What the Judgment Says
The judgment states that, for the reasons in the court’s November 2, 2025 order, the court denied Marquis Jovan Ventura’s request for appointment of counsel. The opinion text provided here does not include the November 2 order’s reasoning.
The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Ventura might be asserting. The judgment cites 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Appeal-Related Rulings
The court found that the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It therefore ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is a court authorization required for certain appeals involving a constitutional claim.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, it denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition and Scope
The judgment denied appointment of counsel, declined supplemental jurisdiction over possible state-law claims, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The provided text does not state that the court resolved the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.