Cutts v. Miller
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-10721
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cutts v. Miller, Judge Liman's court dismissed Cutts's habeas petition and denied a certificate allowing an appeal.
Aljulah Cutts's federal habeas petition was dismissed; Christopher Miller was the named defendant.
What happened
In Cutts v. Miller, Aljulah Cutts sought a court order challenging custody under a federal law for state prisoners. The judgment identifies Christopher Miller, the superintendent of Green Meadow Correctional Facility, as the defendant.
The court dismissed Cutts's petition under the federal habeas statute. The judgment says the reasons were given in an earlier opinion and order dated January 25, 2021, but those reasons are not included here.
Judge Liman's court also said Cutts had not substantially shown that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. The court further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Cutts v. Miller · No. 1:19-cv-10721
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 20, 2022
Background
Aljulah Cutts filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute allowing a state prisoner to seek federal review of custody that allegedly violates federal law. The defendant is identified as Christopher Miller, superintendent of Green Meadow Correctional Facility.
Ruling
The court entered judgment dismissing the petition. The judgment states that the dismissal was based on the reasons in the court's Opinion and Order dated January 25, 2021. That earlier opinion is not included in the provided text, so the specific reason for dismissal cannot be determined from this judgment alone.
The court also ruled that Cutts had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied and therefore would not issue a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required for certain federal habeas appeals. In addition, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.