Mullady v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision
- Analisa Torres
- 1:21-cv-06108
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mullady v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision, Judge Torres adopted the recommendation and denied Joseph Mullady’s habeas petition.
Joseph Mullady and the New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision; Mullady’s federal petition was denied and the case was closed.
What happened
In Mullady v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision, Joseph Mullady challenged the timing of his fourth and fifth parole reconsideration interviews. He also argued that his 1988 sentence was excessively harsh and violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
A magistrate judge recommended denying Mullady’s petition. Mullady, who represented himself, did not object to that recommendation within the allowed time. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Analisa Torres adopted the recommendation in full and denied Mullady’s application under the federal law governing challenges to state custody. She directed the Clerk of Court to terminate pending motions, enter judgment, and close the case.
The detailed version
- Mullady v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision · No. 1:21-cv-06108
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 28, 2024
Background
Joseph Mullady filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a person in state custody to challenge that custody in federal court. The opinion states that Mullady represented himself.
Mullady alleged that the New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision violated his constitutional rights by conducting his fourth and fifth parole reconsideration interviews late, contrary to New York Executive Law § 259-i(2)(a). In a reply brief, he also argued that his 1988 sentence was grossly disproportionate to his crime and therefore amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied in its entirety and that the case be dismissed. Mullady was notified that he could object, but no objection was filed before the deadline expired.
Because no objection was filed, Judge Torres reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. Judge Torres found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Torres adopted Judge Willis’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Mullady’s application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions, enter judgment consistent with the order and the recommendation, and close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.