Jones v. The Warden of OBCC
| Rafael Arden Jones |
| The Warden of OBCC and Ned McCormack |
| 1:2023cv08295 |
| September 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Laura Taylor Swain |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 15, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 MOTION, Re: selection of U.S. District Judge to oversee all hearings and decisions on these pleadings. Document filed by Rafael Arden Jones.(sc) |
| Filing 10 MOTION, Re: for Violations of 28:1605, and Violations of 18: 1341(Mail Fraud and Malicious Delays. Document filed by Rafael Arden Jones.(sc) |
| Filing 8 AMENDED PETITION, Re: amending #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2241 against Ned McCormack.Document filed by Rafael Arden Jones. Related document: #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.(sc) |
| MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 6-7. Mailed to: Rafael Arden Jones 8952300111 O.B.C.C. 16-00 Hazen Street 8L East Elmhurst, NY 11370. (sha) |
Filing 7
CIVIL JUDGMENT: For the reasons stated in the November 6, 2023, order, this action is dismissed. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Courts judgment would not be taken in good faith. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/6/2023) (ks)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: This petition, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) (1), is denied as barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Because Petitioner makes no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue under 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. 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). The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this action. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/6/2023) (ks)
|
| MAILING RECEIPT: Document No: 5. Mailed to: Rafael Arden Jones 8952300111 O.B.C.C. 16-00 Hazen Street 8L East Elmhurst, NY 11370. (sha) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER GRANTING IFP APPLICATION: Leave to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees is authorized. 28 U.S.C. 1915. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/18/2023) (vn)
|
| Filing 4 LETTER from Rafael Jones, dated 10/3/23 re: 28:22441(E) EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 71 U.S.C. 2 VIOLATED U.S. CONSTITUTION ART. 1 SECT. 9, 2. Document filed by Rafael Arden Jones.(sc) |
| Filing 3 LETTER from Rafael Jones, dated 9/23/23 re: Plaintiff 's Petition cites Imminent Danger pursuant to 28:1915(G) for violations of the First, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to U.S Constitution by acts of sedition by state employee administrators etc., and they shall be fined or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both. Document filed by Rafael Arden Jones.(sc) |
| NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT - SUA SPONTE to Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case..(rdz) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Document filed by Rafael Arden Jones..(rdz) |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Document filed by Rafael Arden Jones..(rdz) |
| Case Designated ECF. (rdz) |
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 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.
