Scott v. Pike County Correctional Facility

S.D. New York

Scott v. Pike County Correctional Facility

DecidedMay 13, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-03645

StatusUnknown

This text of Scott v. Pike County Correctional Facility (Scott v. Pike County Correctional Facility) 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

Scott v. Pike County Correctional Facility, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TONIA SCOTT, Petitioner, -against- 20-CV-3645 (CM) PIKE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL TRANSFER ORDER FACILITY, et al., Respondents. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner Tonia Scott filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Although the petition lists a Manhattan address for Petitioner, she purports to challenge a conviction from Pike County, Pennsylvania.1 Pike County is located in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, this action is therefore transferred, under Local Rule 83.3, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). 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 Middle District of Pennsylvania. Whether Petitioner should be permitted to proceed further without payment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court.2 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.

1 Plaintiff is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from filing any new action in forma pauperis (IFP) in this Court without first obtaining from the Court leave to file. See Scott v. New York State Dep’ t of Motor Vehicles, ECF 1:17-CV-3517, 6 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2017).

2 Petitioner did not submit an application for leave to proceed IFP. 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 IFP 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: May 13, 2020 , New York, New York huh hich 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 TONIA SCOTT, Petitioner, -against- 20-CV-3645 (CM) PIKE COUNTY CORRECTIONAL TRANSFER ORDER FACILITY, et al., Respondents. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner Tonia Scott filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Although the petition lists a Manhattan address for Petitioner, she purports to challenge a conviction from Pike County, Pennsylvania.1 Pike County is located in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, this action is therefore transferred, under Local Rule 83.3, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). 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 Middle District of Pennsylvania. Whether Petitioner should be permitted to proceed further without payment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court.2 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.

1 Plaintiff is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from filing any new action in forma pauperis (IFP) in this Court without first obtaining from the Court leave to file. See Scott v. New York State Dep’ t of Motor Vehicles, ECF 1:17-CV-3517, 6 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2017).

2 Petitioner did not submit an application for leave to proceed IFP. 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 IFP 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: May 13, 2020 , New York, New York huh hich Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Scott v. Pike County Correctional Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-pike-county-correctional-facility-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack