Safran v. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
||Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
||David J. Safran
||August 15, 2012
||US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
||Central Islip Office
||Joseph F. Bianco
|Nature of Suit:
||Habeas Corpus (General)
|Cause of Action:
||28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|April 30, 2014
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED in its entirety. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Petitione r has not shown that "reasonable jurists could debate whether... the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Middleton v. Att' ys Gen. of States of N.Y., Pennsylvania, 396 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) ("A certificate of appealability may issue... only if the applicant has made a substantial showin g of the denial of a constitutional right."). Additionally, 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 therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the petition and to close this case. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 4/30/2014. (Abdallah, Fida)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?