UNITED STATES v. SUPERINTENDENT
- 1:23-cv-01634
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In United States v. Superintendent, the court denied habeas relief, refused an appeal certificate, and closed the case.
The petitioner’s habeas petition was denied and dismissed, and the case was closed. The petitioner was also denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying court fees; the respondent was the Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility.
What happened
In United States v. Superintendent, the court adopted an earlier recommendation in full and denied the petition challenging the petitioner’s custody through a habeas petition.
The court did not issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. It then dismissed the petition and closed the case.
The judgment was entered by the court on December 4, 2025. The provided judgment does not identify a judge by name.
The detailed version
- UNITED STATES v. SUPERINTENDENT · No. 1:23-cv-01634
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, a court order challenging the legality of custody. The judgment states that the court’s ruling was based on its December 2, 2025 Order and that it adopted the related Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Ruling
For the reasons stated in the earlier Order and Report and Recommendation, the court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The provided judgment does not explain whether the denial rested on the merits or on a procedural ground.
Appeal and Case Status
The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because the petitioner had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The judgment then states that the petition was dismissed and that the case was closed.
Disposition
The petition was denied; the petition was also dismissed, and the case was closed. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.