Rodriquez v. Scully
| Decision Date | 29 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 1166,D,1166 |
| Citation | 905 F.2d 24 |
| Parties | Gregory RODRIQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles SCULLY and Robert Abrams, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 89-2393. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Arza R. Feldman, Hauppauge, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellant.
Lisa M. Loscalzo, Bronx, N.Y., Asst. Dist. Atty., Bronx County (Robert T. Johnson, Dist. Atty., Allen M. Hecht, Asst. Dist. Atty., Bronx County, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before PRATT, and MINER, Circuit Judges, and RE, Chief Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
This appeal is from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Whitman Knapp, Judge, denying Gregory Rodriquez's petition of habeas corpus. The claims that Rodriquez asserted are meritless, as we pointed out in our summary order of affirmance, filed April 26, 1990. We write this per curiam opinion, however, to avoid any possible confusion regarding the analysis district courts should apply in deciding whether to issue a certificate of probable cause.
To obtain a certificate of probable cause, the petitioner must demonstrate both that the petition is not frivolous and that it presents some question deserving of appellate review. Alexander v. Harris, 595 F.2d 87, 91 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam); Dory v. Commissioner of Corrections of State of New York, 865 F.2d 44, 46 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam). Merely asserting a non-frivolous claim is insufficient to obtain a certificate, since the petitioner must in addition demonstrate that his non-frivolous petition presents some question deserving of appellate review. Unless the petitioner also satisfies this second requirement, a district court should not issue a certificate.
In Dory, the district court had issued a certificate sua sponte after dismissing the complaint as frivolous. Dory, 865 F.2d at 46. We held that a "summary dismissal followed by the grant of a certificate of probable cause is intrinsically contradictory" and for this reason ordered the district court to allow the respondent to answer the petition. Id. Nothing in that opinion should be read as modifying the two requirements that we articulated in Alexander.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tineo v. U.S.
...of substance for appellate review, no certificate of appealability will issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (as amended); Rodriquez v. Scully, 905 F.2d 24 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam). It is So 1. Petitioner was represented by counsel, Heriberto Cabrera, at the plea allocution and sentencing hearing. 2. ......
-
Diaz v. Mantello
...not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253, as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. See also Rodriquez v. Scully, 905 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (discussing certificate of probable cause under standard prior to amendment of 2253); Alexander v. Harris, 595 F.2d 87,......
-
Thomas v. Scully
...of substance for appellate review, and therefore a certificate of probable cause to appeal will not issue. See Rodriquez v. Scully, 905 F.2d 24, 24 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam). SO 1 Thomas does not assert any claim concerning his sentence in the instant petition. 2 A further requirement for ......
-
Collins v. Scully
...petition presents no questions of substance for appellate review, a certificate of probable cause is denied. See Rodriguez v. Scully, 905 F.2d 24 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam). In September 1983, the New York City Police Department was investigating a string of burglaries in the Kew Gardens H......