Romero v. Napoli
Petitioner: Ubaldo Romero
Respondent: David Napoli
Case Number: 1:2008cv08380
Filed: September 30, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Chemung
Presiding Judge: Colleen McMahon
Presiding Judge: Henry B. Pitman
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 25, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 74 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION for 66 Report and Recommendations. For the foregoing reasons, Romero's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. In addition, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Romero has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right, and appellate review is therefore not warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). 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 the purpose of an appeal Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The Clerk is directed to close the case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/25/2013) (djc) Modified on 11/25/2013 (djc).
July 15, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 66 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ubaldo Romero. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend that the petition be denied in all respects. In addition, because petitioner has not ma de a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, I also recommend that a certificate of appealability not be issued. 28 U.S.C. 2253. To warrant the issuance of a certificate of appealability, "petitioner must show that reasonabl e 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. Attorneys Gen., 396 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original); see also Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that there would be no difference of opinion am ong reasonable jurists that petitioner's federal rights were not violated. I further recommend that certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) not be issued because any appeal from this Report and Recommendation, or any Order entered thereo n, would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this R eport to file written objections. See also Fed.R. Civ. P. 6(a). Such objections (and responses thereto) shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with courtesy copies delivered to the Chambers of the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer, United States Dist rict Judge, 40 Centre Street, Room 2201, and to the Chambers of the undersigned, 500 Pearl Street, Room 750, New York, New York 10007. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Engelmayer. FAILURE TO OBJECT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. Objections to R&R due by 8/1/2013. Respectfully submitted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 7/15/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rsh).
April 1, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 62 OPINION AND ORDER: Petitioner's motion to file an amended petition is denied without prejudice to a renewed petition that either annexes a copy of the proposed amended petition or sets forth a detailed description of the proposed amendments. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 4/1/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ft)
September 14, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 56 OPINION AND ORDER re: 48 MOTION filed by Ubaldo Romero. By notice of motion dated February 20, 2012, petitioner in the 2254 proceeding moves to compel the production to him of certain excerpts of the transcript of his first trial in state court. Because petitioner's Double Jeopardy claim appears to be procedurally bared and appears to fail as a matter of law regardless of the sufficiency of the evidence offered at petitioner's first trial, the transcripts that he seeks appear to be immaterial to the issues currently before me, and, therefore, petitioner's motion is denied. If, on full consideration, I conclude that the transcript excerpts petitioner seeks could somehow be relevant to some material issue before the Court, I shall revisit this decision. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mark Docket Item 48 as closed. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/14/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (jar)
September 21, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 44 OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel and the appointment of an expert witness (Docket Item 39) is denied without prejudice to renewal. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/21/2010) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (jfe)
March 8, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 40 OPINION AND ORDER re: #98631 27 MOTION for Discovery filed by Ubaldo Romero, 29 MOTION for Hearing filed by Ubaldo Romero. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, petitioner's motion to compel discovery (Docket Item 27) is denied withou t prejudice to renewal if petitioner's double jeopardy claim is ultimately found not to be procedurally barred. Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing (Docket Item 29) is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 3/8/2010) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(tve) Modified on 3/8/2010 (ajc).
May 5, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 26 OPINION AND ORDER #97489: Accordingly, because petitioner has failed to show that his petition is sufficiently meritorious to warrant the appointment of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, his motion for counsel is again denied without prejudice to renewal. Any renewed application should be accompanied by an affidavit establishing the merits. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 5/4/09) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(js) Modified on 5/7/2009 (mro).
February 18, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER: Accordingly, if petitioner withdrew his present petition, it is almost a certainty that any subsequent habeas petition would be time-barred and petitioner would be forever barred from asserting his constitutional claims in federal court. Accordingly, petitioner should carefully consider whether he wishes to withdraw the present petition. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 2/17/2009) Copies Mailed By Chambers.(tve)
January 29, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 8 OPINION AND ORDER #97016: Accordingly, because petitioner has failed to show what efforts he made to find counsel and that his 7 petition is sufficiently meritorious to warrant the appointment of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, his mo tion for counsel is denied without prejudice to renewal. Any renewed application should be accompanied by an affidavit establishing the merits. 7 APPLICATION to Appoint Counsel pursuant to 18 USC3006(A)(g) (Habeas Corpus Petition) terminated. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 1/29/09) Copies Mailed by Chambers.(db) Modified on 1/30/2009 (mro). Modified on 1/30/2009 (mro). Modified on 2/5/2009 (db).
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Romero v. Napoli
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Ubaldo Romero
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: David Napoli
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?