Lara v. Lee
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-06338
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lara v. Lee, Judge Torres adopted the recommendation, denied Ramon Lara’s federal habeas petition, and denied permission to appeal.
Ramon Lara’s § 2254 petition was denied, and his certificate of appealability was also denied. William Lee was the respondent. The case remains closed.
What happened
In Lara v. Lee, Ramon Lara objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning his petition challenging his custody under federal habeas law. His objections were delayed in the mail, so the court accepted them as timely.
Lara argued that delays in his extradition from the Dominican Republic suggested prosecutorial misconduct. The court found that his objections were general and did not specifically address the recommendation’s conclusion that he suffered no prejudice from the delay, which was attributed to his fleeing to the Dominican Republic.
Judge Torres reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it entirely. The court denied Lara’s petition, denied a certificate required to appeal, and stated that the case remains closed.
The detailed version
- Lara v. Lee · No. 1:19-cv-06338
- Analisa Torres
- July 13, 2020
Background
Ramon Lara, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The opinion concerns his objections to a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. The report addressed Lara’s argument that delays in his extradition from the Dominican Republic suggested prosecutorial misconduct. It concluded that Lara was not prejudiced by the delay, which the report attributed to his fleeing to the Dominican Republic.
Lara’s first objection letter was dated May 25, 2020, but mailing delays caused it to be received and docketed after the objection deadline and after the court had already adopted the report. Lara later requested a full fresh review of the petition. Because the delay was caused by mailing problems, the court accepted his objections as timely and issued an amended order.
Court’s Review
The court explained that it could accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It would review specific objections from scratch, but would review general, conclusory, or repetitive objections only for clear error—a plainly mistaken conclusion apparent from the record.
The court found that Lara’s argument about extradition delays did not specifically challenge Judge Fox’s conclusions about prejudice. It therefore applied clear-error review and found no clear error.
Disposition
Judge Torres adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Lara’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254. It also denied a certificate of appealability, which is required before a petitioner may appeal the denial of a § 2254 application. The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Lara and stated that the case remains closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.