Galladay v. Carter

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEVIN GALLADAY, Petitioner, ORDER – against – 23-cv-823 (ER) WARDEN, MRS. CARTER, NYC DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondent. Ramos, D.J.: Kevin Galladay, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 31, 2023. Doc. 1. He challenged his pre-trial detention in connection with a criminal case pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, docket number CR-022514-21. Id. Galladay did not specify a statutory basis for his petition. See id. Accordingly, the Court issued an order on February 2, 2023, providing that it would construe the petition as brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 4 (“the February 2023 Order”) at 2–3. �e Court further identified several defects in Galladay’s petition and ordered that he file an amended § 2241 petition by March 6, 2023. Id. at 3. Specifically, the Court ordered Galladay to (1) identify all of the grounds on which he sought relief, and (2) plead facts to show that he fully exhausted his state court remedies. Id. �e order provided that failure to respond or file an amended petition would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. Id. at 5. �e Court also noted that federal courts generally may not intervene in pending state criminal proceedings unless there exist special circumstances suggesting bad faith, harassment or irreparable injury. Id. at 4; see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). �us, to the extent Galladay sought relief requiring such intervention, the Court must deny the request, as Galladay had alleged no special circumstances. Id. Galladay failed to amend his petition by March 6. On March 22, 2023, the Court issued a second order, which again directed Galladay to amend his petition to cure the defects noted in the

February 2023 Order. Doc. 6 (“the March 2023 Order”). �e Court granted Galladay until April 21, 2023 to so amend. Id. �e Court again warned Galladay that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action. Id. On April 18, 2023, Galladay filed an amended petition, which was received by the Court on April 24, 2023. Doc. 7. Galladay’s amended petition, however, fails to cure the defects identified in the March 2023 Order. It neither sufficiently states the grounds upon which Galladay seeks relief nor pleads exhaustion of state court remedies. Moreover, Galladay’s amended petition indicates that the criminal proceedings against him in state court remain ongoing. See Doc. 7. As the Court previously noted—absent a suggestion of bad faith, harassment or irreparable injury—the Court must deny the petition to the

extent it seeks relief that would require the Court to intervene in Galladay’s pending state-court proceedings. Doc. 4 at 4 (citing Younger, 401 U.S.; Heicklen v. Morgenthau, 378 F. App’x 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1973))). �at is because “under the principle known as comity a federal district court has no power to intervene in the internal procedures of the state courts.” Kaufman v. Kaye, 466 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Wallace v. Kern, 481 F.2d 621, 622 (2d Cir. 1973)). As Galladay’s amended petition alleges no facts suggesting bad faith, harassment, or irreparable injury, the Court finds no proper basis for intervention in Galladay’s ongoing criminal proceedings. Accordingly, Galladay’s petition is dismissed. �e 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 Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case and mail a copy of this order to Galladay. It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2023 eee tf ) New York, New York FE — EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.