Rodriguez v. Ecker
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-11514
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rodriguez v. Ecker, Judge Schofield denied an extension, a certificate of appealability, and permission to appeal without paying fees.
William Rodriguez, the self-represented petitioner, was denied additional time to object, a certificate of appealability, and permission to appeal without paying court fees. Stewart T. Ecker is the respondent.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. Ecker, William Rodriguez asked for more time to object to a magistrate judge’s report about his petition and requested a certificate of appealability. He had earlier asked for a free lawyer because of his medical condition.
The court had already adopted the report in full and denied Rodriguez’s request for a free lawyer. In this order, the court said his letters did not provide a reason to reconsider that decision.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the extension and certificate of appealability. The court also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Ecker · No. 1:18-cv-11514
- Lorna Schofield
- May 30, 2023
Background
William Rodriguez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 27, 2023, Magistrate Judge Wang issued a report and recommendation concerning the petition. Rodriguez later requested appointment of a free lawyer, stating that he needed assistance because of his medical condition. The court obtained copies of his medical records.
On March 16, 2023, the court adopted the report and recommendation in full after finding no clear error. It also denied Rodriguez’s request for a free lawyer.
Requests at Issue
Rodriguez later requested an extension of time to object to the report and a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of certain federal habeas petitions. The court considered his letters liberally because he was representing himself.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Rodriguez’s request for an extension of time to object to the report and denied his request for a certificate of appealability. The court stated that, although it was sympathetic to Rodriguez’s condition, he had been able to file multiple letters before the report was adopted, and those letters did not present grounds to reconsider the adoption of the report.
The court also determined that Rodriguez had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal on the merits from the March 16 order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.