Rodriguez v. Lee

Rodriguez v. Lee

Plaintiff:	Jorge Rodriguez
Defendant:	William Lee
Case Number:	7:2010cv00396
Filed:	January 5, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	White Plains Office
County:	Dutchess
Presiding Judge:	Cathy Seibel
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

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
December 9, 2013	Filing 44 MEMORANDUM DECISION for 39 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Yanthis's thorough and well- reasoned R&R, and the petition is DENIED. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. As pe titioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). In addition, the Court certifies, p ursuant 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 21/9/2013) The Clerks Office Has Mailed Copies. (rj)
August 25, 2010	Filing 17 ORDER: Petitioner Jorge Rodriguez has moved for a free copy of the trial transcripts from his state court proceedings related to this action. Petitioner generally claims that he is in need of said trial transcriptsto reply to the response filed by Re spondent in opposition to his habeas corpus application. Petitioner has not made any showing of a particularized need for the trial transcript. Petitioner at the very least must demonstrate some reasonably compelling reason why he needs the trial tra nscripts. Petitioner is not entitled to the transcripts "for the purpose of combing it in the hopes that something might turn up." Buford v. Hendersoq 524 F.2d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 1975)(citation omitted). Moreover, a review of the habeas corp us application filed by the Petitioner reveals that he only raises issues alleging that he should not have been sentenced as a Mandatory Persistent Violent Felony Offender, the same issues he raised on direct appeal in state court. The need for trial transcripts to prepare a replq is not evident. Accordingly, the motion is denied, Petitioner shall have until September 30, 2010 to submit any reply. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis on 8/25/10) Copies Sent By Chambers. (fk)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 9, 2013

Filing 44 MEMORANDUM DECISION for 39 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Yanthis's thorough and well- reasoned R&R, and the petition is DENIED. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. As pe titioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). In addition, the Court certifies, p ursuant 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 21/9/2013) The Clerks Office Has Mailed Copies. (rj)

August 25, 2010

Filing 17 ORDER: Petitioner Jorge Rodriguez has moved for a free copy of the trial transcripts from his state court proceedings related to this action. Petitioner generally claims that he is in need of said trial transcriptsto reply to the response filed by Re spondent in opposition to his habeas corpus application. Petitioner has not made any showing of a particularized need for the trial transcript. Petitioner at the very least must demonstrate some reasonably compelling reason why he needs the trial tra nscripts. Petitioner is not entitled to the transcripts "for the purpose of combing it in the hopes that something might turn up." Buford v. Hendersoq 524 F.2d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 1975)(citation omitted). Moreover, a review of the habeas corp us application filed by the Petitioner reveals that he only raises issues alleging that he should not have been sentenced as a Mandatory Persistent Violent Felony Offender, the same issues he raised on direct appeal in state court. The need for trial transcripts to prepare a replq is not evident. Accordingly, the motion is denied, Petitioner shall have until September 30, 2010 to submit any reply. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis on 8/25/10) Copies Sent By Chambers. (fk)

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: Rodriguez v. Lee
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jorge Rodriguez
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 ]
Defendant: William Lee
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?