Richardson v. Underwood

S.D. New York

Richardson v. Underwood

DecidedMarch 22, 2023

Docket1:18-cv-07694

StatusUnknown

This text of Richardson v. Underwood (Richardson v. Underwood) 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

Richardson v. Underwood, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARKRICHARDSON, SSS

Plaintiff, -against- 18 CIVIL 7694 (VEC) JUDGMENT MICHAEL CAPRA, Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Defendant. wane It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED): That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2023, the R&R is rejected and Petitioner's request for habeas relief is DENIED. Because reasonable jurists may find it "debatable" whether Petitioner states a valid claim, Miller-El Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003), the Court issues a certificate of appealability as to whether the state courts clearly erred by applying Chapple and its progeny rather than Seibert when deciding Petitioner's suppression motion. Petitioner is granted in forma pauperis status for the purposes of any appeal. See Coppedge United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) (concluding that an appeal may be taken in forma pauperis if made in "good faith"); Laboriel v. Lee, No. 18-CV-3616 (RA), 2021 WL 76170, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2021) (issuing a certificate of appealability and granting in forma pauperis status); accordingly, the case 1s closed. Dated: New York, New York March 22, 2023 RUBY J. KRAJICK

ClerkofCourt BY: HK MANGO Deputy Clerk

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 MARKRICHARDSON, SSS

Plaintiff, -against- 18 CIVIL 7694 (VEC) JUDGMENT MICHAEL CAPRA, Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Defendant. wane It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED): That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2023, the R&R is rejected and Petitioner's request for habeas relief is DENIED. Because reasonable jurists may find it "debatable" whether Petitioner states a valid claim, Miller-El Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003), the Court issues a certificate of appealability as to whether the state courts clearly erred by applying Chapple and its progeny rather than Seibert when deciding Petitioner's suppression motion. Petitioner is granted in forma pauperis status for the purposes of any appeal. See Coppedge United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962) (concluding that an appeal may be taken in forma pauperis if made in "good faith"); Laboriel v. Lee, No. 18-CV-3616 (RA), 2021 WL 76170, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2021) (issuing a certificate of appealability and granting in forma pauperis status); accordingly, the case 1s closed. Dated: New York, New York March 22, 2023 RUBY J. KRAJICK

ClerkofCourt BY: HK MANGO Deputy Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richardson v. Underwood, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-underwood-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack