Davalloo v. Kaplan

S.D. New York

Davalloo v. Kaplan

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Davalloo v. Kaplan. Read the opinion of the Court — 256 F. Supp. 3d 482 →

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 7, 2020·No. 7:16-cv-09342·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POR at SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Be | THLo eee nee nner ene nenn ee □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ pe ope CS SHEILA DAVALLOO, Petitioner, AMENDMENT TO y ’ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF OCTOBER 18, 2019 SABINA KAPLAN, Superintendent, Bedford : Hills Correctional Facility, 16 CV 9342 (VB) Respondent. : ee en ee renee een eee ee The Court amends its October 18, 2019, Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. #37), as follows: As petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d. Cir. 2005). In addition, the Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk is instructed to mail a copy of this Order to petitioner at the address on the docket. Dated: January 7, 2020 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED: |

Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POR at SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Be | THLo eee nee nner ene nenn ee □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ pe ope CS SHEILA DAVALLOO, Petitioner, AMENDMENT TO y ’ MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF OCTOBER 18, 2019 SABINA KAPLAN, Superintendent, Bedford : Hills Correctional Facility, 16 CV 9342 (VB) Respondent. : ee en ee renee een eee ee The Court amends its October 18, 2019, Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. #37), as follows: As petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d. Cir. 2005). In addition, the Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk is instructed to mail a copy of this Order to petitioner at the address on the docket. Dated: January 7, 2020 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED: |

Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge

Davalloo v. Kaplan, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Davalloo v. Kaplan (Davalloo v. Kaplan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related