McCray v. Superintendent
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-03994
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McCray v. Superintendent, Judge McMahon dismissed the case without prejudice after McCray failed to explain why it should continue.
Robert L. McCray's case was dismissed without prejudice, while his habeas corpus claims in the related case identified by docket number 1:20-CV-4127 were left unaffected by this dismissal.
What happened
In McCray v. Superintendent, the court ordered the petitioner to explain why the case should not be dismissed while his custody-related claims continued in a related case.
The petitioner did not respond within the allowed time, so the court dismissed this case without prejudice to his claims in McCray v. Royce. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees and said no appeal certificate would issue.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon entered the order on September 18, 2020. The opinion does not decide the underlying custody-related claims.
The detailed version
- McCray v. Superintendent · No. 1:20-cv-03994
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 18, 2020
Background
The court had previously ordered Robert L. McCray to show cause—meaning explain why the case should not be dismissed—within 30 days. The court stated that dismissal would not affect his claims seeking habeas corpus relief in McCray v. Royce, No. 1:20-CV-4127.
Ruling
McCray did not show cause within the time allowed. The court therefore dismissed this action without prejudice to his claims for habeas corpus relief in McCray v. Royce. The opinion does not address the merits of those claims.
Appeal-related rulings
The court determined that the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it said a certificate of appealability would not issue. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail McCray a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.