Lopez v. United States
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-02698
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lopez v. United States, Judge Engelmayer denied Carlos Lopez’s request to appeal the denial of his federal post-conviction motion.
Carlos Lopez’s ability to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; the United States is the opposing party.
What happened
In Lopez v. United States, Carlos Lopez, representing himself, asked the court for permission to appeal the January 5, 2023 denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The court said Lopez had not made the required substantial showing that a federal right had been denied. The court also had previously determined that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for the appeal.
Judge Engelmayer denied Lopez’s motion for a certificate of appealability, relying on the reasons stated in the January 5, 2023 opinion.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. United States · No. 1:21-cv-02698
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 26, 2023
Background
Carlos Lopez, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion asking the court for a certificate of appealability so that he could appeal the court’s January 5, 2023 opinion and order denying his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The motion was filed as Docket 12.
Court’s Analysis
A certificate of appealability is required for an appeal from the denial of certain federal post-conviction relief. The court’s January 5 opinion stated that Lopez had not made a substantial showing that a federal right had been denied, so appellate review was not warranted. That opinion also stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
The June 26 order stated that, after considering the record and the reasons given in the January 5 opinion, the court denied Lopez’s motion.
Disposition
The court denied Lopez’s motion for a certificate of appealability. The order did not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.