Ultsch v. United States
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:19-cv-10703
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Judge Briccetti’s Ultsch v. United States judgment denied Ultsch’s petition challenging his federal imprisonment, denied an appeal fee waiver, and closed the case.
Timothy James Ultsch’s § 2241 petition was denied. Any appeal would not qualify for permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing costs under the court’s certification.
What happened
In Ultsch v. United States, the court denied Timothy James Ultsch’s petition for a court order challenging his federal imprisonment under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The judgment states that the reasons appear in a November 30, 2020 Opinion and Order, which was not provided here.
The court said Ultsch did not need a certificate of appealability to appeal. But it certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing costs. The case was closed.
Judge Vincent Briccetti is identified as the judge in the case information provided. Because the underlying Opinion and Order is not included, the judgment alone does not show whether the petition was denied on the merits or on a threshold ground.
The detailed version
- Ultsch v. United States · No. 7:19-cv-10703
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 30, 2020
Disposition
The court entered judgment denying Timothy James Ultsch’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The judgment states that the reasons for the denial are contained in the court’s Opinion and Order dated November 30, 2020. That Opinion and Order is not included in the provided text.
Appeal-related rulings
The court stated that a federal prisoner seeking relief under § 2241 does not need a certificate of appealability to appeal. The court nevertheless certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing costs. The case was closed.
Basis of the denial
The provided judgment does not explain whether the court decided the substance of Ultsch’s § 2241 petition or denied it on a threshold ground. The classification therefore reflects only the supplied judgment and should be confirmed against the missing Opinion and Order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.