Delgado v. Griffin
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:16-cv-01313
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Delgado v. Griffin, Judge Ramos denied Delgado’s habeas petition, refused an appeal certificate, and denied fee-free appeal status.
David Delgado’s habeas petition was denied; the court also denied fee-free status for an appeal, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.
What happened
In Delgado v. Griffin, David Delgado sought a court order challenging his detention through a habeas petition. The provided judgment does not explain the underlying claims or arguments.
The court adopted the Report in full and denied Delgado’s petition. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and closed the case.
Judge Edgardo Ramos is identified as the judge in the case information. The judgment is dated September 25, 2020.
The detailed version
- Delgado v. Griffin · No. 1:16-cv-01313
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 25, 2020
Background
David Delgado brought a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Superintendent Griffin, Green Haven Correctional Facility. The judgment refers to a Report and to a separate court order dated September 25, 2020, but those materials are not included in the provided text. The judgment therefore does not describe the legal grounds for Delgado’s petition or the parties’ arguments.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report in its entirety and denied Delgado’s habeas petition. It stated that Delgado 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 a habeas appeal in certain circumstances.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). As a result, it denied Delgado fee-free status for purposes of an appeal and stated that the case was closed.
Classification note
Based only on the provided judgment, this is classified as a procedural order because the judgment itself does not show that the court reached the merits of the habeas questions. The referenced Report and September 25 order could provide additional reasoning, but they are not included here.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.