Suero v. Noeth
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-03752
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Suero v. Noeth, Judge Ramos denied Suero a certificate to appeal and permission to proceed without paying fees.
Jonathan Suero was denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees; the court also stated that his failure to object to the report and recommendation waived his right to appeal.
What happened
In Suero v. Noeth, Jonathan Suero, representing himself, asked the federal court to review his state custody under a federal habeas petition. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition, and the court adopted that recommendation after Suero filed no objections.
After Suero filed a notice of appeal, the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because he had not made the required substantial showing that a federal right was denied. The court also found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Judge Edgardo Ramos further stated that Suero waived his right to appeal by not objecting to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The detailed version
- Suero v. Noeth · No. 1:19-cv-03752
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 22, 2020
Background
Jonathan Suero, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his state custody. The State of New York opposed the petition. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a report and recommendation recommending that the petition be denied. The recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days to object and that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. Suero filed no objections. On July 13, 2020, the court adopted the recommendation in full. Suero later filed a notice of appeal.
Ruling
The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for a federal habeas petitioner to appeal, because Suero had not made a substantial showing that a federal right had been denied. The court denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees because it determined that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court also stated that Suero waived his right to appeal by failing to object to the report and recommendation.
Disposition and classification
The order denied a certificate of appealability and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees. It is classified as a procedural order because it addressed appellate and fee-related requirements rather than deciding the underlying habeas question in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.