Carter v. Annucci
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-09019
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Carter v. Annucci, Judge Ramos denied Carter’s motions, finding his appeals timely and his request to proceed without fees unnecessary.
David E. Carter’s post-judgment motions and appeal-related requests were denied or denied as unnecessary; the earlier denial of his petition remained in place.
What happened
David E. Carter had already had his federal petition challenging his imprisonment denied when he asked the court to revisit that decision. He said delays in receiving legal mail had affected his ability to respond to the magistrate judge’s report.
Carter also asked for oral argument, to restart the proceedings, more time to appeal, and permission to appeal without paying court fees. The court found that Carter did not file timely objections to the report, and that the earlier decision had not depended only on the absence of objections.
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the motions for oral argument and to restart the proceedings. He denied the requests for more time to appeal and to proceed without paying fees as unnecessary because Carter’s appeals were timely and he had already been allowed to proceed without paying fees in the district court.
The detailed version
- Carter v. Annucci · No. 1:22-cv-09019
- Edgardo Ramos
- Nov. 29, 2023
Background
David E. Carter filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his imprisonment. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition in full. After no objections were filed, the district court adopted that recommendation, denied the petition, and closed the case. Judgment was entered on October 12, 2023.
Carter later sent letters asserting that significant delays in receiving legal mail affected his ability to respond to the report and recommendation. He said he received the report on August 30. The respondent submitted mailing records and a correctional-facility mail log indicating that Carter received court mail during the relevant period. Carter also argued that the petition had been misunderstood and that the court had not considered part of the state-court record.
Motions Concerning the Earlier Decision
The court declined to revisit the report and recommendation or its order adopting it. Even accepting Carter’s claimed August 30 receipt date, the court found that he did not file timely objections. The court also explained that its earlier decision had stated that it independently reviewed the report and found no error, so adoption of the report did not turn only on Carter’s failure to object.
The court denied Carter’s motions for oral argument, filed as Documents 100 and 109, and his motion to “reconvene proceedings,” filed as Document 107.
Appeal-Related Motions
Carter filed two notices of appeal challenging the order adopting the report and recommendation. The court found that both notices were filed within the 30-day appeal period. It therefore denied as unnecessary Carter’s motions for extensions of time to file the notices of appeal, Documents 101 and 106.
Carter also moved for permission to proceed on appeal without prepaying court fees. Because the district court had already granted him permission to proceed without prepaying fees, and that permission had not been revoked, the court found that he did not need additional authorization. It denied that motion, Document 102, as unnecessary.
Disposition
The court denied the motions for oral argument and to “reconvene proceedings.” It denied the motions for extensions of time and the motion to proceed without prepaying fees as unnecessary. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the listed motions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.