Keita v. Fields
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-06154
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Keita v. Fields, Judge Furman dismissed Keita’s habeas petition and denied appeal-related certificate and fee-waiver requests.
Keita’s habeas petition was dismissed; the judgment also affected Keita’s ability to appeal by denying a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Keita v. Fields concerned a habeas petition filed by Keita against Leroy Fields. The provided judgment does not explain the petition’s claims or the reasons for dismissal; it refers to a separate memorandum opinion and order.
The court dismissed Keita’s habeas petition and stated that Keita had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court therefore declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Judge Jesse Furman’s court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Keita v. Fields · No. 1:20-cv-06154
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 12, 2020
Background
Keita filed a habeas petition against Leroy Fields. The provided document is a judgment. It states that the reasons for the result appear in a separate memorandum opinion and order dated November 12, 2020, but that memorandum is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court dismissed Keita’s habeas petition. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was based on the petition’s merits or on a threshold ground such as jurisdiction, exhaustion, or another procedural issue.
The court also ruled that Keita had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. As a result, it did not issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for certain federal habeas appeals. The court further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Keita permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The case was closed.
Classification
This is classified as a procedural order because the provided judgment contains no merits analysis and refers to a separate memorandum for the reasons supporting dismissal. The judgment itself does not provide enough information to determine the specific basis for dismissal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.