Charles v. Capra
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-01669
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Charles v. Capra, Judge Briccetti adopted the recommendation, granted the dismissal motion, dismissed the petition, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Alan Charles, whose habeas petition was dismissed and whose request to appeal without paying filing fees was denied; Michael Capra, the respondent.
What happened
Alan Charles petitioned against Michael Capra, identified as a superintendent. The judgment states that the court adopted a report and recommendation issued on August 22, 2022, but it does not explain the petition’s underlying claims or the recommendation’s reasoning.
The court overruled Charles’s objections, adopted the report and recommendation in full, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the habeas petition. The case was closed. The court also determined that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Charles permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
Judge Vincent Briccetti is identified as the judge for Charles v. Capra. The judgment was dated August 24, 2022, and the document was signed by the court clerk’s office.
The detailed version
- Charles v. Capra · No. 7:21-cv-01669
- Vincent Briccetti
- Aug. 24, 2022
Background
Alan Charles was the petitioner, and Michael Capra, identified as a superintendent, was the respondent. The judgment concerns Charles’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for court relief from allegedly unlawful custody or detention. The provided judgment does not describe the underlying claims, the procedural history, or the reasoning in the report and recommendation.
Ruling
The court overruled Charles’s objections and adopted in its entirety a report and recommendation dated August 22, 2022. It granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the habeas petition. The judgment states that the case was closed.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Charles permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The provided judgment does not state whether the dismissal was based on the merits or on a threshold issue.
Effect
The judgment ended the case in the district court. Because the provided text does not give the report and recommendation’s reasoning, it does not establish why the petition was dismissed beyond stating that the motion to dismiss was granted.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.