Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Jan. 23, 2023

Starkes v. United States

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:20-cv-00265
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Starkes v. United States: Judge Schofield’s judgment denied Starkes’s petition, declined a certificate of appealability, denied appeal-related fee waiver, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Quentin Starkes, whose petition was denied, and the United States, which received judgment in its favor.

What happened

In Starkes v. United States, the court denied Quentin Starkes’s petition for the reasons given in a separate opinion and order dated January 23, 2023.

The court said no certificate of appealability would issue because Starkes had not made the required showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also found that an appeal on the merits would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.

Judge Lorna Schofield’s judgment entered judgment for the United States and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Starkes v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-00265
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Jan. 23, 2023

Background

The judgment concerns a petition filed by Quentin Starkes against the United States. It states that the reasons for the decision were provided in a separate Opinion and Order dated January 23, 2023. That separate opinion is not included in the provided text, so the petition’s specific claims and the court’s substantive reasoning cannot be summarized here.

Rulings

The court denied the petition. It ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Starkes had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. A certificate of appealability is required for an appeal in this type of proceeding.

The court also certified that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying court fees. The judgment entered judgment in favor of the United States and stated that the case was closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.