Naranjo v. United States
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:17-cv-09573
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Naranjo v. United States, Judge Rakoff dismissed Jover Naranjo’s petition with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Jover Naranjo’s petition was dismissed with prejudice, and he was denied a certificate of appealability and permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The United States was the respondent.
What happened
Jover Naranjo filed a petition against the United States in this matter. The provided judgment does not describe the petition’s claims or the reasons for dismissal; it refers to an earlier court order and recommendation.
The court adopted the earlier Report and Recommendation and dismissed the petition with prejudice, meaning the petition cannot be refiled in the same form. The court also refused to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.
Judge Jed Rakoff is identified in the case information supplied with the opinion. The judgment states that Naranjo had not made the required showing that a constitutional right was denied and that any appeal would lack a reasonable legal or factual basis.
The detailed version
- Naranjo v. United States · No. 1:17-cv-09573
- Jed Rakoff
- Apr. 9, 2021
Background
The judgment concerns Jover Naranjo’s petition against the United States. The provided text does not identify the petition’s specific legal claims, the relief requested, or the reasoning in the underlying court order. It states that the court had issued an order dated April 8, 2021, and that a Report and Recommendation was before the court.
Rulings
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the petition with prejudice. The judgment does not provide the reasons for that dismissal; it incorporates the reasons stated in the April 8 order and the Report and Recommendation.
The court also determined that Naranjo had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. Based on that determination, it ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is the court’s authorization for an appeal in this type of proceeding.
The court further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith because Naranjo’s claims lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. It therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying the required filing fees.
Effect
The petition was dismissed with prejudice. The judgment separately denied a certificate of appealability and permission to proceed without prepaying fees. The provided judgment does not state the underlying claims or explain the court’s merits analysis, if any.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.