Perron v. Department of Corrections et al
| James Perron |
| FDC Miami and Attorney General of the State of New York |
| 1:2016cv05874 |
| July 22, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Ronald L. Ellis |
| Paul A. Engelmayer |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
65
OPINION & ORDER: Careful review of the thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals that there is no facial error in its conclusions. The Report, which is incorporated by reference herein, is adopted without modification. The petition for habeas corpus is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. The Court therefore declines to issue a certificate of appealability, and certifies that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith; therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The Court directs the Clerk to mail a copy of this decision to petitioner at the address on file. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 12/11/2018) (ama) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: 48 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. filed by James Perron. 'The decision whether to grant leave to amend a pleading is within the sound discretion of the Court." Thompson v. United States, No. 16-CV-03468 (AJN) (KNF), 2017 WL 2670815, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2017) (internal citations omitted). "Such leave should be denied only in limited circumstances e.g., where amendment is sought in bad faith, where such would unduly prejudice the opposing party or parties or where such would be futile." Irizarry v. Ercole, No. 08-CV-5884 (KMK) (PED), 2009 WL 3151358, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009) (internal citation omitted). None of those circumstances are present here. Indeed, Respondent "concedes that petitioner should be allowed to supplement the claim in his original habeas petition with the claim raised in his motion to amend/supplement pleadings as the factual predicate relied upon in the s upplemental pleading occurred after the filing of the original habeas petition." (ECF No. 57.)Thus, Petitioner's motion (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED. As the parties have already briefed the substance of Perron's supplemental claim, no furth er briefing is required. In considering the Petition, the Court will consider Petitioner's Supplemental Pleading (ECF No. 48), Respondent's Opposition (ECF Nos. 59 & 60) and Petitioners Reply (ECF No. 54). So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 7/11/2018) (js)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
