Ifill v. Lamanna
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-02993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ifill v. Lamanna, Judge Caproni denied reconsideration, leaving intact the refusal to authorize an appeal of the habeas decision.
Richard Ifill’s request for reconsideration was denied, so the earlier refusal to issue a certificate of appealability and to certify that an appeal would be taken in good faith remained in effect.
What happened
In Ifill v. Lamanna, Richard Ifill, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of his petition challenging his state-court convictions. He focused on the alleged unfairness of the identification lineup and the reliability of the victim’s identification.
Ifill asked the court either to authorize an appeal or to remove the statement that any appeal would not be pursued in good faith. The court said no reasonable judge could debate its earlier decision, citing the identification evidence, DNA found on items in the cab, and the lack of controlling Supreme Court decisions supporting his claim.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied the motion for reconsideration. The earlier refusal to issue an appeal certificate and to certify that an appeal would be pursued in good faith therefore remained in place.
The detailed version
- Ifill v. Lamanna · No. 1:21-cv-02993
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 23, 2022
Background
Richard Ifill, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his New York state-court convictions for first-degree robbery, second-degree kidnapping, and two counts of second-degree robbery. The court had previously adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied the petition.
Ifill’s petition challenged the victim-identification evidence. He argued that the photo array and later police lineup were unduly suggestive because of the participants’ baldness or partial baldness. He also argued that the victim’s identification was not independently reliable and that any constitutional error was not harmless.
Motion for Reconsideration
Ifill moved for reconsideration of the earlier order. He asked the court either to reverse its decision not to issue a certificate of appealability—a required authorization for a state prisoner to appeal the denial of a federal habeas petition—or to remove the statement that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a certificate of appealability may issue only when the petitioner makes a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The petitioner must show that reasonable judges could debate whether the petition should have been resolved differently or that the issues deserved further review.
The court also explained that a person unable to pay court fees may appeal without prepaying them only if the district court certifies that the appeal is taken in good faith. Under the objective standard described by the court, an appeal is not in good faith when it is frivolous—meaning it relies on legally baseless conclusions or fanciful factual allegations.
On reconsideration, the court adhered to its earlier refusal to issue a certificate of appealability and declined to remove the statement concerning good faith. It found no United States Supreme Court holding clearly contrary to the state court’s decision and noted that Ifill had not identified one.
The court further stated that, even if the lineup had been unduly suggestive, the victim’s identification was independently reliable because he had multiple opportunities to observe Ifill and identified him with certainty in both the photo array and lineup. The court also pointed to DNA found on tape and a black plastic bag in the cab. It said that this physical evidence strongly supported the conclusion that any identification error would have been harmless.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Ifill’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at docket entry 26.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.