Thomas v. Griffin
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:14-cv-03559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Thomas v. Griffin, Judge Karas adopted the recommendation and dismissed Thomas’s habeas petition challenging his conviction.
The ruling affected Forest Thomas’s federal challenge to his New York conviction and ended this federal habeas proceeding. Patrick Griffin was the respondent.
What happened
Forest Thomas asked the federal court to overturn his New York conviction for two first-degree assault counts, including claims involving allegedly suggestive photo arrays.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition in full. Thomas did not object, and the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
In Thomas v. Griffin, Judge Karas adopted the recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the petition. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Griffin · No. 7:14-cv-03559
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
Forest Thomas filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his March 18, 2009 conviction after a jury trial in Dutchess County Supreme Court. The conviction involved two counts of first-degree assault under New York Penal Law § 120.10(1) and (2). The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.
Thomas filed the federal petition on May 1, 2014. During the federal case, he asked for a stay while pursuing additional claims in state court, but that request was denied. The magistrate judge also obtained photo arrays connected to Thomas’s claims about allegedly suggestive identification procedures during the criminal investigation.
Report and Recommendation
On December 30, 2019, Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison recommended that the court deny the petition in its entirety. Thomas did not file objections. When no objections are filed, the district court reviews a recommendation on a dispositive matter for clear error.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas reviewed the petition and the recommendation and found no substantive error, including no clear error. He adopted the recommendation in its entirety and ordered that the petition be dismissed. The order does not independently discuss the merits of each habeas claim; it resolves the case by adopting the recommendation after clear-error review.
The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Thomas had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and directed the Clerk to mail the order to Thomas and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.