George Burns v. Warden and/or Superintendent of the Westchester County Jail

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 16, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-05258
StatusUnknown

This text of George Burns v. Warden and/or Superintendent of the Westchester County Jail (George Burns v. Warden and/or Superintendent of the Westchester County Jail) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
George Burns v. Warden and/or Superintendent of the Westchester County Jail, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GEORGE BURNS, Petitioner, 25-CV-5258 (LLS) -against- WARDEN AND/OR SUPERINTENDENT ORDER TO AMEND OF THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY JAIL, Respondent. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 By order dated August 28, 2025, the court granted Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.2 For the following reasons, the Court designates this application as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and directs Petitioner to file an amended petition within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on “behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has the authority to review and dismiss a Section 2254 petition without ordering a responsive pleading from the state, “[i]f it plainly

1 Petitioner was held in the Westchester County Jail at the time he filed the petition. 2 Petitioner filed the petition without the $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. By order dated June 27, 2025, the Court directed Petitioner to cure this deficiency. Petitioner filed an in forma pauperis application on July 14, 2025. appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4; see Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them “to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in

original); see Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is not exempt “from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Triestman, 470 F.3d at 477 (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). BACKGROUND The following allegations are taken from the petition. Petitioner has three misdemeanor assault convictions from the Town of Mount Pleasant, New York court. The arrests occurred in June and July 2009 on the grounds of the Westchester County Jail. Petitioner states, Petitioner will argue the county jail is not in the Town of Mount Pleasant New York (which contains the Villages of Valhalla, Hawthorne, Pleasantville, and Thornwood). Petitioner will argue county jail is in the Town of Eastvie, geographical jurisdiction under New York Law must still be followed. The County Jail may be closer to the Town of Greenburgh and Elmsford (a village in Greenburgh). Petitioner was arraigned on a felony complaint for a local criminal court arraignment in Mt. Pleasant Court, for aforesaid conviction. Petitioner will argue that aforesaid convictions are jurisdictionally flawed. (ECF 1, at 1.) Petitioner further alleges that correctional officers “may have been prosecuted” in Mount Pleasant for offenses occurring within the jail. (Id. at 2.) He maintains that the County Jail “simply uses a Valhalla, New York mailing address” and that Westchester County police officers, not Mount Pleasant officers, transport detainees between the jail and court.” (Id.) Petitioner does not state the relief he is seeking. DISCUSSION A. Designation of application as petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Although Petitioner labels his petition as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, his allegations suggest that he is seeking to challenge one of more state court judgments. Petitioner’s application must be construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 because his allegations suggest that he seeks to challenge “the judgment of a State

court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. If Petitioner does not want to pursue relief under Section 2254, he may notify the Court in writing within sixty days that he wishes to withdraw the application. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003); Adams v. United States, 155 F.3d 582, 584 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Cook v. New York State Div. of Parole, 321 F.3d 274, 282 (2d Cir. 2003). Petitioner will have one opportunity within the limitations period for a full adjudication of his claims. If Petitioner does not inform the Court of his intent within 60 days, the application shall remain designated as a petition under Section 2254 B. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases A state prisoner must submit a petition that conforms to the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. Rule 2(c) requires a petition to specify all of a petitioner’s available grounds for relief, setting forth the facts supporting each of the specified grounds and stating the relief requested. A petition must permit the Court and the respondent to comprehend both the petitioner’s grounds for relief and the underlying facts and legal theory supporting each ground so that the issues presented in the petition may be adjudicated. This petition does not conform to the requirements of Rule 2(c). As an initial matter, Petitioner suggests that he is seeking to challenge multiple convictions occurring in or around 2009, but he does state the specific convictions he seeks to challenge. Moreover, Petitioner does not state the relief he is seeking, and it is unclear whether his submission includes all his grounds for relief and the supporting facts. Mindful of the Court’s duty to construe pro se actions liberally, see Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), the Court has analyzed Petitioner’s submission and finds that neither the Court nor a respondent could discern the convictions he seeks to challenge or the constitutional basis for the petition.

C. Exhaustion of state court remedies A state prisoner must exhaust all available state remedies before filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2254. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); see Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
George Burns v. Warden and/or Superintendent of the Westchester County Jail, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-burns-v-warden-andor-superintendent-of-the-westchester-county-jail-nysd-2025.