Baly v. Certificate of Appeals Supreme Court of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05812
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Baly v. Certificate of Appeals Supreme Court of New York, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the application without prejudice after Baly failed to respond to an order.
Rami Baly’s application challenging his 2017 conviction was dismissed without prejudice. The order also denied Baly permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
What happened
In Baly v. Certificate of Appeals Supreme Court of New York, the application challenged Baly’s 2017 conviction. The court had notified him that it would treat the application as a petition seeking review of a state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The court gave Baly 30 days to file an amended petition under that law or ask for more time. It warned that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not respond or did not want the application treated that way. Baly filed neither an amended petition nor another response, and the deadline expired.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the application without prejudice for failure to respond to the court’s order. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Baly permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.
The detailed version
- Baly v. Certificate of Appeals Supreme Court of New York · No. 1:22-cv-05812
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Baly’s application attacked his 2017 conviction. In an order dated August 9, 2022, the court notified him that it would recharacterize the application as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute used to challenge a state-court conviction or custody.
Court-Ordered Response
The court directed Baly to file either an amended Section 2254 petition or a request for an extension of time within 30 days. The court stated that the action would be dismissed without prejudice if Baly indicated that he did not want the recharacterization or failed to respond within the deadline. Baly filed neither an amended petition nor another response, and the deadline expired.
Ruling
The court dismissed the application without prejudice for failure to respond to the court’s order. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not itself bar a later filing. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. Judgment was ordered to enter.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.