Sandoval-Campos v. Homeland Security

S.D. New York

Sandoval-Campos v. Homeland Security

DecidedJanuary 8, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-03854

StatusUnknown

This text of Sandoval-Campos v. Homeland Security (Sandoval-Campos v. Homeland Security) 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

Sandoval-Campos v. Homeland Security, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RONAL-DANILO SANDOVAL-CAMPOS, Petitioner, -against- 1:24-CV-3854 (LTS) HOMELAND SECURITY; EX REL. ORDER DIRECTOR OF INS; DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Respondents. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: By order dated October 7, 2024, the Court ruled that, to the extent that Petitioner, who appears pro se, challenged an order of removal directing his removal from the United States of America, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider any challenge to that order. (ECF 7.) To the extent that Petitioner wished to challenge his state court conviction and/or sentence upon which he is currently in custody, however, the Court, in that order, construed his pleading as seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and granted Petitioner 60 days’ leave to file an amended petition for such relief. (Id.) On January 2, 2025, the Court received a letter from Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated in the Eastern Correctional Facility. (ECF 8.) In his letter, Petitioner requests an extension of time to comply with the Court’s October 7, 2024 order. (Id.) Petitioner’s request is granted. The Court grants Petitioner an additional 30 days from the date of this order to comply with the Court’s October 7, 2024 order. If Petitioner does not file an amended petition for Section 2254 habeas corpus relief or requests to withdraw this action, within the additional time allowed, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. 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. See 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 8, 2025 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 RONAL-DANILO SANDOVAL-CAMPOS, Petitioner, -against- 1:24-CV-3854 (LTS) HOMELAND SECURITY; EX REL. ORDER DIRECTOR OF INS; DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Respondents. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: By order dated October 7, 2024, the Court ruled that, to the extent that Petitioner, who appears pro se, challenged an order of removal directing his removal from the United States of America, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider any challenge to that order. (ECF 7.) To the extent that Petitioner wished to challenge his state court conviction and/or sentence upon which he is currently in custody, however, the Court, in that order, construed his pleading as seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and granted Petitioner 60 days’ leave to file an amended petition for such relief. (Id.) On January 2, 2025, the Court received a letter from Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated in the Eastern Correctional Facility. (ECF 8.) In his letter, Petitioner requests an extension of time to comply with the Court’s October 7, 2024 order. (Id.) Petitioner’s request is granted. The Court grants Petitioner an additional 30 days from the date of this order to comply with the Court’s October 7, 2024 order. If Petitioner does not file an amended petition for Section 2254 habeas corpus relief or requests to withdraw this action, within the additional time allowed, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. 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. See 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 8, 2025 New York, New York

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sandoval-Campos v. Homeland Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandoval-campos-v-homeland-security-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack