Santiago v. Uhler
- Lewis Liman
- 1:18-cv-02849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Santiago v. Uhler, Judge Liman denied Santiago’s motion to reconsider the denial of his habeas petition.
Brandin Santiago’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
What happened
In Santiago v. Uhler, Brandin Santiago asked the court to reconsider its earlier order denying his petition challenging his conviction under a federal law governing state prisoners’ habeas petitions.
Santiago argued that the magistrate judge wrongly rejected his claim that the conviction lacked enough supporting evidence. The claim had been found both unexhausted, meaning it had not been properly presented through the required state-court process, and procedurally defaulted, meaning a procedural rule prevented the federal court from considering it. The earlier decision also found the claim lacked merit.
The court found that Santiago raised no new issues and identified no error in the earlier analysis. Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Santiago v. Uhler · No. 1:18-cv-02849
- Lewis Liman
- May 5, 2023
Background
Brandin Santiago petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a state prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence in federal court. On January 2, 2023, the court adopted Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo’s report and recommendation and denied the petition.
Santiago then moved for reconsideration of that order. He argued that the magistrate judge had erred in rejecting his claim that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. The claim had been rejected as unexhausted and procedurally defaulted, and alternatively as lacking merit. “Unexhausted” means the claim had not been properly presented to the state courts. “Procedurally defaulted” means a procedural rule prevented the federal court from reviewing the claim.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the report and recommendation and Santiago’s motion. It concluded that the motion raised no issues that had not already been considered by the magistrate judge or the court and did not identify any error in the earlier decision. The court stated that the magistrate judge properly determined both that the claim was unexhausted and procedurally defaulted and that it lacked merit.
Disposition
The court denied Santiago’s motion for reconsideration. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Santiago a copy of the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.