Santana v. United States
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-02659
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Santana v. United States, Judge Caproni denied Santana’s request for a certificate of appealability after finding no substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.
Shajonny Santana, whose motion for a certificate of appealability was denied.
What happened
In Santana v. United States, Shajonny Santana asked the court to issue a certificate of appealability concerning the court’s denial of his request to reconsider the denial of his challenge to his conviction. He had originally argued that his lawyer provided ineffective assistance.
A certificate of appealability requires a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court explained that this standard includes showing that reasonable judges could disagree about how the matter should have been decided.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Santana’s motion because he had not made that required showing. The clerk was directed to close the motion and mail Santana a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Santana v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-02659
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 29, 2022
Background
Shajonny Santana filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction. He argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. On July 28, 2022, the court denied that motion. Santana then moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and the court denied reconsideration on September 6, 2022.
On November 9, 2022, Santana moved for a certificate of appealability concerning the denial of his reconsideration motion. A certificate of appealability is a court authorization required for an appeal in this type of post-conviction matter. The order also notes that, if the district court denies a certificate, the party may seek one from the court of appeals.
Legal standard
Under the rules governing Section 2255 proceedings, the court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order against the applicant. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the applicant must make a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The order explains that this generally requires showing that reasonable judges could debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Santana’s motion for a certificate of appealability. The court found that Santana had not made a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The clerk was directed to close the motion at docket entry 742 and mail Santana a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.