Kane-Lee v. Warden of Rikers Island

S.D. New York

Kane-Lee v. Warden of Rikers Island

DecidedMarch 5, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-01256

StatusUnknown

This text of Kane-Lee v. Warden of Rikers Island (Kane-Lee v. Warden of Rikers Island) 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

Kane-Lee v. Warden of Rikers Island, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PATRICIA KANE-LEE, Petitioner, 20-CV-1256 (CM) -against- TRANSFER ORDER WARDEN OF RIKERS ISLAND, Respondent. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island on a Vermont warrant for violation of probation (ECF No. 2 at 3), brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. She challenges the constitutionality of her 2014 conviction in the Vermont Superior Court, Bennington Criminal Division. “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where in might have been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Because Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Bennington, Vermont, which is located in the District of Vermont, see 28 U.S.C. § 126, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. 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, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. 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 this case. 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 1s 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: March 5, 2020 New York, New York hi hb Hk 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 PATRICIA KANE-LEE, Petitioner, 20-CV-1256 (CM) -against- TRANSFER ORDER WARDEN OF RIKERS ISLAND, Respondent. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island on a Vermont warrant for violation of probation (ECF No. 2 at 3), brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. She challenges the constitutionality of her 2014 conviction in the Vermont Superior Court, Bennington Criminal Division. “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where in might have been brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Because Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Bennington, Vermont, which is located in the District of Vermont, see 28 U.S.C. § 126, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. 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, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. 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 this case. 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 1s 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: March 5, 2020 New York, New York hi hb Hk Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kane-Lee v. Warden of Rikers Island, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kane-lee-v-warden-of-rikers-island-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack