Gonzalez-Alvarez v. Eckert
- 1:17-cv-09773
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gonzalezalvarez v. Eckert, the court dismissed Jonathan Gonzalezalvarez’s habeas petition with prejudice and would not issue a certificate of appealability.
Jonathan Gonzalezalvarez’s habeas case was dismissed with prejudice; judgment was entered in favor of Stewart Eckert, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Gonzalezalvarez v. Eckert, the court dismissed Jonathan Gonzalezalvarez’s petition challenging his custody through a court order with prejudice. The judgment says the dismissal was based on reasons stated in an Opinion and Order dated May 17, 2023, which is not included in the provided text. The court also adopted a report and recommendation in full.
The court said Gonzalezalvarez had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith under the cited statute.
The court entered judgment for Stewart Eckert and closed the case. The provided judgment identifies the clerk, Ruby J. Krajick, but does not identify the judge; the court entered the stated judgment on May 17, 2023.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez-Alvarez v. Eckert · No. 1:17-cv-09773
- May 17, 2023
Disposition
The judgment states that Jonathan Gonzalezalvarez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the same petition. The court adopted the report and recommendation in full and entered judgment in favor of Stewart Eckert. The case was closed.
Appeal-related rulings
The court found that Gonzalezalvarez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It therefore stated that it would not issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for an appeal in many federal habeas cases. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.
Limits of the provided text
The judgment gives the disposition but does not explain the underlying habeas claims or the reasons for dismissal. It refers to an Opinion and Order dated May 17, 2023, and to a report and recommendation, but those documents were not provided. The text identifies Ruby J. Krajick as the clerk and does not name the judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.