Alfonso v.LaManna
- Paul Davison
- 7:18-cv-04607
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Alfonso v. LaManna, the court adopted a recommendation, dismissed the petition with prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.
Justin Alfonso’s petition was dismissed with prejudice; Jamie LaManna prevailed, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Alfonso v. LaManna, the court reviewed the remaining parts of a judge’s report and recommendation about Justin Alfonso’s petition challenging his confinement. The court found no error and adopted the recommendation’s outcome.
The court dismissed Alfonso’s petition with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. It entered judgment for Jamie LaManna and closed the case.
The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Alfonso had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The deciding judge is not identified in the supplied judgment; Judge Davison is identified only as the judge who prepared the report and recommendation.
The detailed version
- Alfonso v.LaManna · No. 7:18-cv-04607
- Paul Davison
- Oct. 25, 2022
Background Justin Alfonso petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, a court procedure for challenging unlawful custody. The judgment refers to a report and recommendation prepared by Judge Davison and to the court’s earlier order dated October 24, 2022.
Court’s analysis The court stated that it had conducted a thorough review of the remaining portions of the report and recommendation and found no error, “clear or otherwise.” It therefore adopted the outcome recommended in that report. The supplied judgment does not explain the underlying grounds for the recommendation or independently discuss the merits of Alfonso’s petition.
Ruling The court dismissed Alfonso’s petition with prejudice. It entered judgment in favor of Jamie LaManna and closed the case. The court also ruled that Alfonso had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it did not issue a certificate of appealability. In addition, the court certified that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith. The judgment is dated October 25, 2022, and the supplied text identifies the clerk and deputy clerk but does not identify the judge who entered it.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.