Aning v. United States
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:22-cv-06019
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Aning v. United States, Judge Rakoff denied Lord Aning’s petition with prejudice, rejected an appeal certificate, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Lord Aning’s petition was denied with prejudice, and he was denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying court fees. The provided judgment does not identify the petition’s underlying claim or explain how the ruling affects the United States beyond resolving the petition.
What happened
Lord Aning filed a petition against the United States in case 22-cv-6019. The judgment does not explain the petition’s specific claims, but it refers to reasons stated in an earlier court order and report.
The court adopted the report and recommendation and denied the petition with prejudice. It also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Aning had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.
Judge Jed Rakoff’s court further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, and closed case 22-cv-6019. The judgment is dated April 16, 2024.
The detailed version
- Aning v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-06019
- Jed Rakoff
- Apr. 16, 2024
Ruling
The judgment states that the court adopted a report and recommendation and, for the reasons stated in that report and in the court’s April 15, 2024 order, denied Lord Aning’s petition with prejudice. The provided judgment does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or explain the court’s substantive reasoning.
Appeal-related rulings
The court ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Aning had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. A certificate of appealability is a required court authorization for an appeal in this type of proceeding.
The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith because Aning’s claim lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying court fees. The court stated that case 22-cv-6019 was closed. The judgment does not state that the related criminal case, No. 21-cr-88, was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.