Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 6, 2023

Rios v. Kaplan

Docket
1:17-cv-00314
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rios v. Kaplan, the court denied Rios’s objection, found two claims unexhausted, and declined to issue an appeal certificate.

Who this affects

Maria Rios and Saban Kaplan.

What happened

In Rios v. Kaplan, Maria Rios objected to a report and recommendation in her case against Saban Kaplan. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims.

The court denied Rios’s objection in its entirety and adopted the report and recommendation, except that it did not consider the merits of Rios’s second and fourth claims because she had not completed the required process for pursuing them.

The court entered judgment accordingly and, under Judge the court’s ruling, declined to issue a certificate required for Rios to appeal the July 5, 2023 order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rios v. Kaplan · No. 1:17-cv-00314
Date
July 6, 2023

Background

The judgment concerns Maria Rios’s objection to a report and recommendation in her case against Saban Kaplan. The judgment itself does not describe the underlying claims or the relief Rios sought.

Ruling

The court denied Rios’s objection in its entirety. It adopted the report and recommendation in all respects except for its consideration of the merits of Rios’s second and fourth claims. The court stated that those claims could not be considered because Rios failed to exhaust them, meaning she had not completed the required process for pursuing them before seeking court review. Judgment was entered accordingly.

Appeal Certificate

The court stated that Rios could not appeal the July 5, 2023 order unless a judge issued a certificate of appealability. The court declined to issue that certificate, finding that Rios would not meet the required showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The judgment resolved docket entry number 39.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.