Rosario-Santiago v. Pliler
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-03202
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rosario-Santiago v. Pliler, Judge Cronan denied Luis J. Rosario-Santiago’s habeas petition and denied fee-free appeal status.
Luis J. Rosario-Santiago’s § 2241 petition was denied, his request to appeal without paying court fees was denied, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Rosario-Santiago v. Pliler, Luis J. Rosario-Santiago sought a court order requiring relief under a federal law governing detention challenges. The judgment does not describe the facts or arguments behind the petition.
The court adopted a prior report and recommendation in full and denied the petition. It also denied Rosario-Santiago permission to appeal without paying court fees and closed the case.
Judge Cronan’s July 28 order supplied the reasons for the decision, but that order is not included in the provided text. The judgment itself does not say whether the petition was denied on the merits or for a threshold reason.
The detailed version
- Rosario-Santiago v. Pliler · No. 1:21-cv-03202
- John Cronan
- July 29, 2022
Parties and proceeding
Luis J. Rosario-Santiago was the petitioner, and Mr. W.S. Pliler, identified as a warden, was the respondent. Rosario-Santiago filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for challenging certain forms of detention.
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons in the court’s July 28, 2022 Order, the court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied the § 2241 petition. The provided judgment does not include the Report and Recommendation or the July 28 Order, so it does not explain the legal or factual basis for the denial.
The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The case was closed.
Classification note
This is classified as a procedural order because the provided judgment contains no merits analysis and does not identify whether the habeas petition was denied on the underlying detention question or on a threshold ground.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.