Morris v. Wolcott
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-00052
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Morris v. Wolcott, Judge Engelmayer denied the petitioner’s request under Section 2254 and closed the case.
Keith Morris, whose motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied and whose request to proceed without paying court fees for an appeal was denied.
What happened
In Morris v. Wolcott, Keith Morris challenged the denial of his request under a federal law allowing state prisoners to seek federal review of their custody. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims or arguments.
The court’s judgment states that, for the reasons given in its June 27, 2023 Opinion and Order, the petitioner’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied. The judgment also says the court would not issue a certificate of appealability, a document generally required for an appeal in this type of case.
Judge Paul Engelmayer’s court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for purposes of an appeal. The case was closed.
The detailed version
- Morris v. Wolcott · No. 1:22-cv-00052
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 19, 2023
Background
The caption identifies Keith Morris as the plaintiff and Julie Wolcott as the defendant. The judgment refers to Morris as the petitioner and states that he filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute governing certain challenges to state-court custody. The provided judgment does not state the specific grounds for the motion or describe the court’s underlying analysis.
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s Opinion and Order dated June 27, 2023, the petitioner’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied.
The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for purposes of an appeal. The case was closed.
Classification note
The provided judgment does not include the June 27 Opinion and Order or explain whether the § 2254 motion was denied on the merits or on a threshold ground. This summary therefore describes the stated disposition without inferring the reasoning.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.