Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 15, 2020

Rodriguez-Francisco v. United States

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:15-cv-08843
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureCriminal
In one sentence

In Rodriguez-Francisco v. United States, Judge Briccetti amended prior orders, denied an appeal certificate, and denied appeal-related fee-waiver status.

Who this affects

The order affected Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Francisco’s ability to pursue his appeal without a certificate of appealability or without paying filing fees.

What happened

In Rodriguez-Francisco v. United States, the court addressed petitioner Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Francisco’s pending appeal from prior orders in his case.

The prior orders denied his motion to vacate an earlier court ruling and his motion for reconsideration. This order amended those orders to add the court’s decisions about the appeal.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because petitioner had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The judge also denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for the appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rodriguez-Francisco v. United States · No. 7:15-cv-08843
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 15, 2020

Background

The court had previously denied petitioner Juan Carlos Rodriguez-Francisco’s motion to vacate the court’s December 1, 2016, opinion and order. The court then denied his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from those rulings.

Rulings

The court amended its November 12, 2019, and November 21, 2019, orders to include two appeal-related rulings.

First, the court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is required for certain appeals from federal post-conviction proceedings. The court found that petitioner had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.

Second, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied petitioner permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of the appeal.

Disposition

The court amended the two prior orders to include these rulings. The order was signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti.

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.