McCray v. Anderson
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:20-cv-02247
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McCray v. Anderson, Judge Briccetti denied Cerious McCray’s default-judgment motions because Adrian H. Anderson had timely answered.
Cerious McCray’s requests for default judgment and a hearing were denied; his underlying habeas petition remained pending before the magistrate judge.
What happened
In McCray v. Anderson, Cerious McCray filed a petition challenging his detention and represented himself without paying filing fees. The court ordered Adrian H. Anderson to respond within 60 days.
Anderson answered on June 11, 2020, before the deadline, and mailed McCray the answer and supporting papers. McCray then asked for a judgment based on Anderson’s alleged failure to respond and requested a hearing on that request.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti denied both motions as entirely without merit because Anderson had appeared and timely answered. The court left the habeas petition under consideration by the magistrate judge, allowed McCray time to reply, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- McCray v. Anderson · No. 7:20-cv-02247
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 22, 2020
Background
Cerious McCray, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on March 21, 2020. The court had ordered Adrian H. Anderson, identified in the caption as Sheriff of Dutchess County Jail, to answer within 60 days.
The 60-day deadline was June 15, 2020. Anderson answered on June 11 and served McCray by mail with the answer and supporting papers. The opinion states that McCray’s motions were dated June 14 and appear to have been submitted before he received Anderson’s answer.
Motions and Ruling
McCray filed a motion for default judgment and a motion for a hearing on default judgment. He argued that Anderson had not appeared in the action. The court found that Anderson had clearly appeared and had timely answered the petition.
The court denied both motions as “entirely without merit.” It did not decide the underlying habeas petition. The petition remained referred to the magistrate judge for consideration, and McCray could file and serve reply papers by July 13, 2020.
Appeal and Case Status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was instructed to terminate the two motions. The opinion does not state a final ruling on McCray’s habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.