Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 21, 2022

Grant v. Gonyea

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:19-cv-00743
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Grant v. Gonyea, Judge Nathan dismissed Grant’s federal petition, denied appeal-related protections, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Thomas Grant’s § 2254 petition was dismissed. The court denied a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing costs; Paul M. Gonyea remained the respondent.

What happened

Thomas Grant filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Paul M. Gonyea. The judgment says the court adopted Judge Freeman’s Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed the petition for the reasons stated there, but this judgment does not explain those reasons.

The court said Grant had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. The court also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing costs.

Judge Nathan is identified in the case information. The court entered judgment dismissing the petition, denied a certificate of appealability and appeal-related fee-free status, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Grant v. Gonyea · No. 1:19-cv-00743
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
Apr. 21, 2022

Background

Thomas Grant was the petitioner, and Paul M. Gonyea was the respondent. Grant filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure for challenging certain state-court custody decisions. The judgment does not state the specific claims or grounds in the petition.

Court’s ruling

The court adopted Judge Freeman’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed Grant’s § 2254 petition for the reasons provided in that report. The judgment itself does not describe those reasons, so the underlying basis for dismissal cannot be determined from this text alone.

The court also ruled that Grant had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. As a result, it ordered that no certificate of appealability would issue. A certificate of appealability is required to pursue an appeal from many federal habeas decisions.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Grant permission to appeal without paying the required filing costs. The case was closed. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Effect

The judgment ended this case in the district court. It did not grant Grant relief on the petition, and this judgment does not identify the underlying reasons for dismissal beyond referring to Judge Freeman’s adopted report.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.