Parsley v. Lamanna
- 7:19-cv-04756-VB-VR
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Parsley v. Lamanna, the court dismissed Parsley’s petition and denied his requests related to an appeal.
Charles Parsley’s habeas petition was dismissed; the judgment also denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Parsley v. Lamanna, the court adopted an earlier recommendation as its own ruling and dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The judgment does not include the recommendation or explain why the petition was dismissed.
The court also said that Parsley had not made the required showing of a constitutional-right violation, so it refused to issue a certificate of appealability. It further denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees and closed the case.
The judgment is dated August 25, 2023, and does not identify a judge; the court entered these rulings through the judgment signed by Clerk Ruby J. Krajick. The dismissal is classified as procedural because the supplied text does not contain a merits analysis and says the court adopted the earlier recommendation.
The detailed version
- Parsley v. Lamanna · No. 7:19-cv-04756-VB-VR
- Aug. 25, 2023
Background
Charles Parsley filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against J. Lamanna. The judgment states that the court had issued an order dated August 25, 2023, and adopted a report and recommendation as the court’s opinion. The supplied text does not include that order or the report and recommendation.
Ruling
The court dismissed the habeas petition. Because Parsley had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, the court said that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is required for certain federal habeas appeals.
The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The case was closed.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the supplied judgment does not analyze the habeas claims on their merits and instead adopts an earlier recommendation that is not included in the supplied text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.