Sanchez v. Lilley

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: July 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-04568
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK For Online Publication Only ---------------------------------------------------------------X EDGAR SANCHEZ, 07-A-1015,

Petitioner, ORDER FILED -against- 23-CV-4568(JMA) CLERK

L. LILLEY, Superintendent, 7/27/2023 11 :15 am U.S. DISTRICT COURT Respondent. EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X LONG ISLAND OFFICE AZRACK, United States District Judge: On June 14, 2023, incarcerated petitioner Edgar Sanchez (“petitioner”), acting pro se, filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner seeks to challenge a 2006 judgment of conviction against him in the Supreme Court in the State of New York, County of Nassau, based on a jury verdict that found him guilty of murder in the second degree and tampering with physical evidence. See Pet., Docket Entry No. 1 at ¶¶ 1, 3, 5. Petitioner previously filed a writ of habeas corpus under §2254 challenging the same conviction. In an Memorandum and Order dated August 6, 2014, the Honorable Joanna Seybert denied that petition. See Sanchez v. Rock, 12-CV-1605(JS) at Docket Entry No. 14. Plaintiff moved for a certificate of appealability and that application was denied by Mandate issued on April 14, 2015. See Docket Entry Nos. 17, 20. Upon review of the declaration accompanying petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that petitioner’s financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1). Accordingly, petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However, for the reasons that

1 follow, the petition is transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act “allocates jurisdiction to the courts of appeals, not the district courts, to authorize successive habeas motions or applications.” Torres v. Senkowski, 316 F.3d 147, 151 (2d Cir. 2003). Accordingly, petitioner must move for

authorization to pursue this successive petition for habeas relief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). In the interest of justice, the Clerk of Court shall transfer this petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Torres, 316 F.3d at 151-52 (citing Liriano v. United States, 95 F.3d 119, 121-23 (2d Cir. 1996) (“[W]e have held that a district court must transfer uncertified successive motions to th[e Second Circuit Court of Appeals] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. . .”). This order closes this case. If the Second Circuit authorizes petitioner to proceed in this matter, he shall move to reopen this docket number, 23-CV-4568(JMA). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is therefore denied for the purpose

of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. _________/s/ (JMA)_________________ Dated: July 27, 2023 JOAN M AZRACK Central Islip, New York UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE