Wallace v. Jacobson
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-02905
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wallace v. Jacobson, Judge Briccetti adopted the R&R, denied Wallace’s habeas petition, and denied appeal-related requests.
Mark Wallace’s habeas petition was denied, and his requests for a certificate of appealability and fee-free status for an appeal were denied. Catherine Jacobson was the respondent.
What happened
In Wallace v. Jacobson, the court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation as its opinion. The judgment does not include the report or explain the underlying claims.
The court denied Mark Wallace’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Judge Briccetti’s court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Wallace v. Jacobson · No. 7:18-cv-02905
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 4, 2020
Background
The provided document is a judgment in Mark Wallace’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Catherine Jacobson. It states that the court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order was dated November 4, 2020, but that opinion and the report and recommendation (R&R) are not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court adopted the R&R as its opinion and denied the habeas petition. Because Wallace had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, the court ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is a document required for certain federal habeas appeals.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment states that the case was closed. The provided judgment does not explain whether the habeas petition was denied on the merits or on a procedural ground; because it contains no merits analysis and simply adopts an R&R, this summary classifies the order as procedural.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.