James v. McCulloch
- Paul Davison
- 7:18-cv-00932-KMK-PED
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
WaynegiJames v. Danielle Dill: the court dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice; no deciding judge is identified.
The judgment affects WaynegiJames, whose habeas petition was dismissed with prejudice, and Danielle Dill, in whose favor judgment was entered.
What happened
In WaynegiJames v. Danielle Dill, the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, a request to challenge unlawful custody or detention. The judgment says the court adopted Judge Davison’s recommended ruling after reviewing the remaining portions for legal error.
The court dismissed the petition with prejudice, meaning the same petition cannot be brought again. It entered judgment for Danielle Dill and closed the case.
The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The judgment is signed by Clerk Ruby J. Krajick; the deciding judge is not identified, so this summary refers to the court.
The detailed version
- James v. McCulloch · No. 7:18-cv-00932-KMK-PED
- Paul Davison
- Feb. 14, 2023
Background
The judgment identifies WaynegiJames as the petitioner and Danielle Dill, Executive Director, as the respondent. The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus. The judgment refers to a report and recommendation by Judge Davison and states that the court had previously issued an order dated February 13, 2023.
Court’s Action
The court states that it conducted a thorough, independent review of the remaining portions of the report and recommendation and found no error. It adopted the outcome recommended by Judge Davison and dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice. It also entered judgment in favor of the respondent and closed the case.
Appeal-Related Rulings
The court denied a certificate of appealability because the petitioner had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment on the merits would not be taken in good faith. The judgment does not explain the underlying habeas claims or the reasons for dismissing them.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.