Cruz v. Coveny
- Analisa Torres
- 1:18-cv-10713
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cruz v. Coveny, Judge Torres overruled Cruz’s objection, adopted the report, denied the petition, rejected an appeal-certification recommendation, and closed the case.
The order directly affected James Cruz by denying his petition and closing the case. Ray Coveny was the respondent, and the court also rejected a proposed certification concerning whether an appeal would be taken in good faith.
What happened
In Cruz v. Coveny, James Cruz filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 without a lawyer. He challenged the admission of recorded phone calls and other evidence, arguing that it violated his right to counsel and his right to a fair trial.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. Cruz objected, arguing that the recommendation did not interpret his petition broadly enough. The court excused the late filing of his objection and reviewed it, along with the rest of the recommendation, for clear error.
Judge Analisa Torres overruled Cruz’s objection, adopted the recommendation’s conclusions, and denied the petition. She rejected the recommendation to certify that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the clerk to close the case, and did not address a separate recommendation about issuing a certificate of appealability because Cruz had not requested one.
The detailed version
- Cruz v. Coveny · No. 1:18-cv-10713
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 6, 2023
Background
James Cruz filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 without a lawyer. The petition raised two grounds for relief. First, Cruz argued that admitting recorded phone calls he made to friends and family while in pretrial detention infringed his right to counsel. Second, he argued that admitting the phone calls, a photograph of the victim, testimony about threats by third parties, and evidence of his nickname, “Krime,” violated his fundamental right to a fair trial.
The court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn for a report and recommendation. After the parties submitted their filings, Judge Netburn recommended that the petition be denied.
Objection and review
Cruz objected to the recommendation. He argued that Judge Netburn had not interpreted his petition broadly enough. The objection was filed after the deadline, but the court excused the delay because Cruz did not receive the extension order until the date the extension expired, the correctional facility was under lockdown, and those circumstances made access to the law library difficult.
The court reviewed Cruz’s general objection for clear error, meaning it looked for an obvious mistake in the recommendation. It concluded that Judge Netburn had not clearly erred and had instead interpreted the petition to present the strongest arguments it suggested while examining the record. The court stated that Cruz’s remaining objections were conclusory or repeated his original arguments and found no clear error in the rest of the recommendation.
Ruling
Judge Torres overruled Cruz’s objection, adopted the recommendation’s conclusions concerning the petition, and denied the petition. The court rejected the recommendation that it certify under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court did not address the recommendation that a certificate of appealability should not issue because Cruz had not requested one. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 42, mail the order to Cruz, and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.