Cooper v. United States
- P. Castel
- 1:11-cv-03054
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cooper v. United States, Judge Castel denied Cooper’s amendment request, ruled no appeal certificate would issue, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Conrad Cooper, whose motion to amend was denied; the United States was the respondent.
What happened
Cooper v. United States concerns Conrad Cooper’s request to amend a motion seeking relief under a federal law that allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence.
The court said there was no pending motion of that type. It also said any new motion would be a later, or successive, motion.
Judge Castel denied the amendment request. He ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied Cooper permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Cooper v. United States · No. 1:11-cv-03054
- P. Castel
- Oct. 30, 2020
Background
The order concerns Conrad Cooper’s post-conviction proceedings following his 2004 conviction. The court referred to earlier orders and appellate mandates for the procedural history but did not repeat that history in this order.
Motion to Amend
Cooper moved under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to amend his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255 provides a procedure for a federal prisoner to seek relief from a conviction or sentence. The court denied the motion because no § 2255 motion was pending and any new § 2255 motion would be a successive motion.
Appeal-Related Rulings
The court stated that Cooper had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It therefore ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Disposition and Classification
The motion to amend was denied. A certificate of appealability will not issue, and permission to proceed without paying filing fees was denied. The order is classified as a procedural order because it resolved the request based on the absence of a pending motion and the successive-motion issue, rather than deciding the underlying constitutional claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.