Fagan v. Superintendent
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-07389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Fagan v. Superintendent, Judge Torres dismissed Keith Fagan’s petition after finding no clear error in the recommended disposition.
Keith Fagan, who represented himself, was directly affected because his petition was dismissed, no certificate of appealability was issued, and permission to proceed without paying appeal fees was denied. The Superintendent, Eastern NY Correctional Facility, was the respondent.
What happened
In Fagan v. Superintendent, Keith Fagan filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the court reviewed a report recommending how to resolve it.
No objections to the report were received. The respondent submitted a response encouraging the court to adopt the report, but the court did not treat that response as an objection.
Judge Analisa Torres found no clear error, adopted the report in full, and dismissed Fagan’s petition. She also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and ruled that an appeal could not proceed without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- Fagan v. Superintendent · No. 1:20-cv-07389
- Analisa Torres
- May 17, 2022
Background
Keith Fagan filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court had before it a Report and Recommendation prepared by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.
Court’s Review
The court received no objections to the Report and Recommendation. Although the respondent filed a response, that response only encouraged adoption of the recommendation, so the court did not treat it as an objection. Judge Torres reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, and found none.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed Fagan’s petition. The court also ruled that Fagan had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. In addition, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of any appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Fagan, who was representing himself, and close the case.
Limits of the Opinion
This order does not explain the Report and Recommendation’s reasoning or why the petition was dismissed. It therefore does not show whether the petition was rejected on the merits or on a procedural ground.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.