Branford v. United States
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-01264
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Branford v. United States, Judge Woods closed duplicate docket entries, denied appeal-related requests, and confirmed an earlier order had resolved the motion.
Joel Branford, whose duplicate civil-docket motions were terminated and whose requests to appeal without paying the filing fee and for a certificate of appealability were denied.
What happened
In Branford v. United States, Joel Branford filed motions under Rules 52(b) and 59(e) concerning his petition for habeas relief. The court had denied that motion on June 16, 2023, but the denial was entered only in Branford’s criminal case. Copies of the motion were also placed on this civil case’s docket.
This order explained that the copies in the civil case were not pending because they were the same in substance as the motion already decided on June 16. The court directed the clerk to terminate the entries for those copies, Docket Nos. 17 and 18.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also denied Branford permission to appeal without paying the filing fee and denied a certificate of appealability. The order stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and that Branford had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.
The detailed version
- Branford v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-01264
- Gregory Woods
- June 27, 2023
Background
Joel Branford filed a motion under Rules 52(b) and 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in connection with his petition for habeas relief. On June 16, 2023, the court denied that motion. The denial was entered only on the docket of Branford’s criminal case, consistent with an earlier order directing that filings related to his habeas petition be docketed there.
Two copies of the motion were also entered on the civil-case docket, as Docket Nos. 17 and 18. The copies were filed on June 16 and June 23, 2023. The court stated that they were the same in substance as the motion already resolved in the June 16 order.
Court’s action
The court entered this order for administrative docketing purposes. It clarified that Docket Nos. 17 and 18 were not pending and that the June 16 order—not this order—resolved the motion. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motions at Docket Nos. 17 and 18 and to mail Branford a copy of the order.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, so it denied Branford in forma pauperis status for an appeal, meaning he could not proceed on appeal without paying the filing fee based on that status. The court separately denied a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, stating that Branford had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.