Patel v. Rockwood
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-01501
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Patel v. Rockwood, Judge McMahon denied Patel’s petition for lack of jurisdiction and as time-barred.
Amit Patel, whose petition was denied and whose request to proceed without paying appeal-related filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Patel v. Rockwood, Amit Patel filed a petition under federal law challenging his detention. In an earlier order, the court denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction and because it was filed too late, but gave Patel 30 days to submit facts addressing those problems.
Patel submitted a declaration on April 21, 2021. The court found that the declaration still did not show that it had jurisdiction or that the petition was timely.
Judge Colleen McMahon therefore denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal-related filing fees.
The detailed version
- Patel v. Rockwood · No. 1:21-cv-01501
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 28, 2021
Background
Amit Patel, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The opinion does not describe the underlying conviction or claim in detail. In an April 1, 2021 order, the court alternatively denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction and because it was filed after the applicable deadline. The court nevertheless gave Patel 30 days to file a declaration showing facts that would establish jurisdiction and timeliness.
Patel’s Declaration
The court received Patel’s declaration on April 21, 2021. The court concluded that the declaration did not show that it had jurisdiction to consider the petition or that the petition was timely.
Ruling
For the reasons stated in the April 1 order, the court alternatively denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction and as time-barred. This was a threshold ruling, so the court did not decide the underlying constitutional issue raised by the petition. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. In addition, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for the appeal.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the petition was denied on jurisdictional and timeliness grounds rather than on the merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.