Corley v. United States
- Alison Nathan
- 1:18-cv-05050
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Corley v. United States, Judge Nathan denied Royce Corley’s new-trial motion, habeas petition, and property-return motion.
Royce Corley, whose requests for a new trial, custody challenge, and return of property were denied and whose permission to appeal without paying court fees was also denied.
What happened
In Corley v. United States, the court ruled on three requests by Royce Corley: a new trial, a petition challenging his custody, and the return of property. The judgment says the reasons appeared in an August 11, 2020 opinion that is not included here.
The court denied all three requests. It also refused to issue a certificate allowing an appeal of the custody ruling because Corley had not made the required showing of a constitutional violation.
Judge Nathan’s judgment further denied Corley permission to appeal without paying court fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and stated that two civil cases were closed.
The detailed version
- Corley v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-05050
- Alison Nathan
- Aug. 18, 2020
Background
The judgment concerns Royce Corley’s requests for a new trial, a writ of habeas corpus—a court order challenging unlawful custody—and the return of property. It states that the reasons for the rulings were given in the Court’s Opinion & Order dated August 11, 2020. That earlier opinion is not included in the provided text.
Rulings
The court denied Corley’s motion for a new trial, denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and denied his motion for a return of property.
The court also found that Corley had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it ordered that no certificate of appealability issue. A certificate of appealability is a document required for an appeal from certain habeas decisions.
The court further found under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The judgment states that cases 18cv5050 and 18cv9280 were closed.
Disposition
Judge Nathan’s judgment denied each of the three motions or petitions identified above. Because the provided judgment does not explain whether the habeas petition was rejected on the merits or on a threshold ground, this summary does not characterize the underlying reasons.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.