Garlick v. Miller
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:18-cv-11038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Garlick v. Miller, Judge Cave directed the Clerk to terminate a misfiled letter-motion without ruling on the habeas petition.
The docket filing in Garlick’s habeas proceeding was affected; the order did not resolve the underlying petition or state a substantive disposition for either party.
What happened
Garlick v. Miller involved a letter from the respondent’s counsel in a habeas case. The letter provided information the court had requested about medicolegal investigators, a death-notice form, related cases, and trial surveillance footage.
The filing was submitted as a motion for a conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 by mistake. The text does not show a ruling on the habeas petition or on the parties’ arguments about autopsy evidence.
Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the Clerk to terminate the letter-motion at ECF No. 27. The order did not state that the habeas petition was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Garlick v. Miller · No. 1:18-cv-11038
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 3, 2019
Background
The respondent’s counsel submitted a letter after oral argument in James Garlick’s habeas proceeding. The letter responded to the court’s request for supplemental information concerning the role of medicolegal investigators in the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the person who completed a November 1, 2011 Notice of Death form. The letter also discussed two cases concerning whether autopsy reports raise issues under the constitutional right to confront witnesses and stated that a CD-ROM containing surveillance footage from the trial had been sent to chambers.
The letter explained that the filing at ECF No. 27 had been inadvertently filed as a motion for a conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2.
Court’s Action
Judge Sarah L. Cave directed the Clerk to terminate the letter-motion at ECF No. 27. The order did not decide the habeas petition, the admissibility or use of autopsy evidence, or any other underlying claim.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.