Rodriguez v. Lee
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-08398
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rodriguez v. Lee, the court denied Marcos Rodriguez’s habeas petition, declined a certificate of appealability, and denied appeal-related fee-free status.
Marcos Rodriguez’s habeas petition was denied, and his requests for a certificate of appealability and fee-free status for an appeal were denied or declined. William Lee was the respondent.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. Lee, Marcos Rodriguez asked the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus, a court order challenging his custody. The judgment does not state the petition’s underlying claims or the reasons for denying it.
The court adopted Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation in full and denied the petition. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for certain federal habeas appeals, and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The case was closed.
The judgment was entered on March 13, 2023, by the court; the text does not identify the district judge by name.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Lee · No. 1:19-cv-08398
- Sarah Cave
- Mar. 13, 2023
Background
Marcos Rodriguez was the petitioner, and William Lee, identified in the caption as Superintendent of the Eastern Correctional Facility, was the respondent. Rodriguez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on September 10, 2019. The judgment does not describe the claims or the factual basis of the petition.
Ruling
The court adopted Judge Cave’s Report and Recommendation in full and denied Rodriguez’s habeas petition. Because the judgment incorporates the court’s Opinion and Order dated March 13, 2023, but that opinion is not included here, the specific grounds for denial are not stated in the provided text.
The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, stating that Rodriguez had not made the required substantial showing that a federal right had been denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.