Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 18, 2022

Ifill v. Lamanna

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-02993
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ifill v. Lamanna, Judge Caproni denied Richard Ifill’s petition, declined a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Richard Ifill’s petition was denied; the judgment also limited appellate options by declining a certificate of appealability and denying permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Amy Lamanna was the respondent.

What happened

Richard Ifill filed a petition against Amy Lamanna, identified as superintendent of Five Points Correctional Facility. The judgment does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the parties’ arguments.

The court adopted a report and recommendation in full and denied Ifill’s petition. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Ifill had not made the required substantial showing of a denial of a federal right.

Judge Valerie Caproni’s court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ifill v. Lamanna · No. 1:21-cv-02993
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
July 18, 2022

Background

Richard Ifill was the petitioner, and Amy Lamanna, identified as superintendent of Five Points Correctional Facility, was the respondent. The supplied judgment does not explain the claims in Ifill’s petition, the parties’ arguments, or the reasoning in the court’s July 14, 2022 order.

Ruling

The court adopted the report and recommendation in full and denied Ifill’s petition. Because the supplied text contains no merits analysis and refers to a separate order for the reasons, it does not show what legal issue the petition raised or why the petition was denied.

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. It stated that Ifill had not made a substantial showing that a federal right had been denied, so appellate review was not warranted. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The case was closed.

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.