Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 2, 2020

Triplett v. Reardon

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:20-cv-01064
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Triplett v. Reardon, Judge McMahon granted a final 30-day extension before a possible time-bar denial and denied appeal-related requests.

Who this affects

Omar (aka Naftali) Triplett must submit the required declaration within 30 days or the court will deny his petition as time-barred. His request for appointed counsel remains undecided, and he cannot proceed without paying appeal fees based on this order.

What happened

In Triplett v. Reardon, the court had ordered Omar (aka Naftali) Triplett to explain why his habeas petition should not be denied as filed too late. Triplett requested another extension after receiving an earlier extension.

The court granted one more 30-day extension for Triplett to submit his declaration. It warned that failing to meet the deadline would result in denial of the petition as time-barred and stated that no further extensions would be granted. The court also postponed deciding his request for appointed counsel and did not require the respondent to answer yet.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order. She ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue, and she denied the ability to appeal without paying court fees because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Triplett v. Reardon · No. 1:20-cv-01064
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 2, 2020

Background

The court had previously directed Omar (aka Naftali) Triplett to submit a declaration explaining why his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should not be denied as time-barred. The court initially gave him 60 days to respond and later granted a 30-day extension. On July 2, 2020, the court received Triplett’s letter requesting another extension.

Rulings

The court granted Triplett another 30-day extension to comply with the earlier order. The declaration was due within 30 days of the July 2 order. The court stated that the submission could be handwritten if legible.

The court warned that if Triplett failed to meet the extended deadline, it would deny the petition as time-barred. It also stated that no answer from the respondent was required at that time and that it would not grant any further extensions. The court deferred ruling on Triplett’s request for appointed counsel until after he submitted the required declaration.

The court further stated that Triplett had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for certain federal appeals. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court did not yet decide whether the habeas petition was time-barred or reach the petition’s underlying claims; it set a deadline for Triplett to respond to that issue.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.