Cottell v. Reardon
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-01178
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cottell v. Reardon, Judge Briccetti denied Adam Cottell’s habeas petition, adopted the report and recommendation, closed the case, and denied appeal-related requests.
Adam Cottell’s habeas petition was denied, the case was closed, and his requests for a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees were denied.
What happened
In Cottell v. Reardon, the court denied Adam Cottell’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It adopted a report and recommendation as the court’s opinion and entered judgment against the petition.
The court closed the case. It also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Cottell had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court further denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Vincent Briccetti is identified in the case information as the judge. The judgment itself refers to a June 6, 2023 order for the reasons supporting the denial, but that order is not included in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Cottell v. Reardon · No. 7:22-cv-01178
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 6, 2023
Background
Adam Cottell petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, asking the federal court to review his detention or custody claim. The provided judgment does not include the underlying facts or the arguments in the petition.
Court’s ruling
The court adopted a report and recommendation as its opinion and denied the habeas petition. Judgment was entered, and the case was closed.
The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Cottell had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. In addition, under the statute governing appeals without prepayment of filing fees, the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying those fees for an appeal.
What is unclear from the provided text
The judgment says that the reasons for the ruling appear in a separate June 6, 2023 order, but that order is not included. Therefore, the provided text does not show whether the court denied the petition after reaching the merits or on a threshold ground.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.