Clarke v. Griffin
- Nelson Roman
- 7:13-cv-04812
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Clarke v. Griffin, Judge Roman denied Clarke’s habeas petition, declined a certificate of appealability, denied appeal fee status, and closed the case.
Desroy Clarke’s habeas petition was denied. T. Griffin was the respondent named in the case. The judgment also affected Clarke’s ability to appeal without a certificate of appealability or without paying filing fees, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Clarke v. Griffin, Desroy Clarke asked the federal court to grant a petition challenging his custody through a legal process for reviewing detention. The judgment gives no details about the underlying claims and says the court relied on an earlier order.
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy’s report and recommendation in full and denied the petition. It also decided that Clarke had not made the required showing for a certificate of appealability, so no certificate would issue.
Judge Roman’s court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied Clarke permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Clarke v. Griffin · No. 7:13-cv-04812
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 29, 2020
Background
Desroy Clarke was the petitioner, and T. Griffin, identified as Superintendent of Eastern Corrections Facility, was the respondent. Clarke filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court proceeding seeking relief from allegedly unlawful custody. The judgment does not describe the petition’s specific claims or the underlying facts.
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s October 28, 2020 order, Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy’s report and recommendation was adopted in its entirety. The petition was therefore denied.
The court also ruled that Clarke had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required for an appeal from certain habeas decisions. The court further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The case was closed.
Scope and classification
The provided judgment does not include the October 28 order or the report and recommendation, so it does not show whether the habeas petition was resolved on the merits or on a threshold ground. Based on the text provided—which adopts the earlier materials without explaining the underlying legal analysis—this summary classifies the disposition as a procedural order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.