Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 27, 2020

Thomas v. Griffin

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:14-cv-03559
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Thomas v. Griffin, Judge Karas adopted the recommendation, dismissed the petition, denied a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Forest Thomas’s petition was dismissed; Patrick Griffin was the respondent. The judgment also affected Thomas’s ability to appeal by declining to issue a certificate of appealability and certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

What happened

In Thomas v. Griffin, the court adopted a report and recommendation in full and dismissed Forest Thomas’s petition against Patrick Griffin. The judgment itself does not explain the underlying claims or the reasons for dismissal.

The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Thomas had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and the case was closed.

Judge Kenneth Karas’s January 27, 2020 judgment therefore dismissed the petition and denied the certificate of appealability. The provided judgment does not state whether the dismissal reached the petition’s merits.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Thomas v. Griffin · No. 7:14-cv-03559
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Jan. 27, 2020

Background

Forest Thomas was the petitioner, and Patrick Griffin was the respondent. The provided document is a judgment referring to the Court’s January 27, 2020 Order. It states that the court adopted the R&R, meaning the report and recommendation, in its entirety.

Rulings

The judgment states that the petition was dismissed. It does not include the underlying Order or explain the claims, the recommended reasoning, or whether the dismissal was based on the merits or on a threshold ground.

The court also determined that Thomas had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. Based on that determination, a certificate of appealability would not issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A certificate of appealability is a document required for certain appeals involving a habeas petition. The court additionally certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith. The case was closed.

Effect of the Judgment

The petition was dismissed, the certificate of appealability was denied, and the court made the stated certification concerning an appeal. Because the provided text does not contain the Court’s Order or the R&R’s reasoning, it does not establish the precise basis for dismissal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.