Harnett v. Russel

S.D. New York

Harnett v. Russel

DecidedJanuary 24, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-00610

StatusUnknown

This text of Harnett v. Russel (Harnett v. Russel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harnett v. Russel, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KELLY HARNETT, Petitioner, 22-CV-0610 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER EILEEN RUSSEL, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently incarcerated at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of her 2015 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. See People v. Harnett, 134 N.Y.S.3d 273, (2d Dep’t Dec. 16, 2020), lv denied, 36 N.Y.3d 1057 (N.Y. Feb. 11, 2021). Because Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Queens County, which is located in the Eastern District of New York, this action is transferred under Local Rule 83.3 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and note service on the docket. The Clerk of Court is further directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Whether Petitioner should be permitted to proceed further without payment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. This order closes the case in the Southern District of New York. Because Petitioner has not at this time made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 24, 2022 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KELLY HARNETT, Petitioner, 22-CV-0610 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER EILEEN RUSSEL, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently incarcerated at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of her 2015 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. See People v. Harnett, 134 N.Y.S.3d 273, (2d Dep’t Dec. 16, 2020), lv denied, 36 N.Y.3d 1057 (N.Y. Feb. 11, 2021). Because Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Queens County, which is located in the Eastern District of New York, this action is transferred under Local Rule 83.3 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and note service on the docket. The Clerk of Court is further directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Whether Petitioner should be permitted to proceed further without payment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. This order closes the case in the Southern District of New York. Because Petitioner has not at this time made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 24, 2022 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harnett v. Russel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harnett-v-russel-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack