Singleton v. New York City Department of Corrections

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 1, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-09245·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AARON L. SINGLETON, Plaintiff, 20-CV-9245 (LTS) -against- NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ORDER CORRECTCIONS, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center (VCBC), brings this pro se action challenging his current detention, which commenced on or about January 31, 2019. On May 17, 2021, the Court dismissed the action, noting that it was declining to recharacterize the complaint as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because it would have been futile to do so, as Plaintiff had not alleged any facts suggesting that he had exhausted his state-court remedies. The following month, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff, challenging the order of dismissal and stating facts showing that he had exhausted his state-court remedies. The Court construed the letter as a motion for reconsideration, granted the motion, and vacated its order of dismissal. For the following reasons, the application is designated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to file a Section 2241 habeas corpus petition setting forth his grounds for relief. DISCUSSION A. The Court recharacterizes this action as a Section 2241 petition Under Section 2241(c)(3), habeas corpus relief is available to a person “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” A prisoner in state custody must generally challenge his confinement in a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but such relief is available under Section 2241 as to a state pretrial detainee challenging his custody as unlawful under the Constitution or federal law. See e.g., Robinson v. Sposato, No. 11- CV-0191, 2012 WL 1965631, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2012); see also Hoffler v. Bezio, 831 F. Supp. 2d 570, 575 (N.D.N.Y. 2011), aff’d on other grounds, 726 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013); Marte

v. Berkman, No. 11-CV-6082 (JFK), 2011 WL 4946708, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2011), aff’d on other grounds sub nom., Marte v. Vance, 480 F. App’x 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order). Plaintiff’s complaint is construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2241 because he challenges his pretrial custody as being “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). If Plaintiff does not want to pursue relief under Section 2241, he may notify the Court in writing within 30 days that he wishes to withdraw the action. 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); see also Simon v. United States, 359 F.3d 139, 144 (2d Cir. 2004) (applying notice rule to petitions brought under Section 2241). If

Plaintiff does not inform the Court of his intent within 30 days, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing a future Section 2241 petition challenging his current custody. B. The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to file a Section 2241 petition The Court grants Plaintiff leave to complete and submit the attached form, “Amended Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Plaintiff should specify his grounds for relief and the supporting facts for each ground. He also should include the steps he took to exhaust each ground for relief. See United States ex rel. Scranton v. New York, 532 F.2d 292, 294 (2d Cir. 1976) (“While [Section 2241] does not by its own terms require the exhaustion of state remedies as a prerequisite to the grant of federal habeas relief, decisional law has superimposed such a requirement in order to accommodate principles of federalism.”). In its final form, the petition must permit the Court and the Respondent – who is the warden of Plaintiff’s current detention facility1 – to comprehend both Plaintiff’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 by the Court.

CONCLUSION The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to file a Section 2241 petition containing the information specified above. The petition must be submitted to this Court’s Pro Se Unit within 30 days of the date of this order, be captioned as an “Amended Petition” and bear the same docket number as this order. An Amended Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 form is attached to this order, which Plainitff should complete as specified above. Once submitted, the Court will review the petition for substantive sufficiency, and then, if the amended petition is sufficient, the case will be reassigned to a district judge in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, and cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the action will be dismissed.

Because Plaintiff has not at this time made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

1 In order to entertain a habeas corpus petition under Section 2241, a court must have jurisdiction over the custodian. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973) (writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon his or her custodian). Thus, the jurisdiction of a habeas petition challenging a Plaintiff’s physical confinement generally lies in the district of his confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004). 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket.

SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2021 New York, New York

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

Singleton v. New York City Department of Corrections, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Singleton v. New York City Department of Corrections (Singleton v. New York City Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky
410 U.S. 484 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Castro v. United States
540 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Eric Adams v. United States
155 F.3d 582 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Cecil Simon, A.K.A. Cecil Jackson v. United States
359 F.3d 139 (Second Circuit, 2004)
Marte v. Vance
480 F. App'x 83 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Hoffler v. Bezio
726 F.3d 144 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Hoffler v. Bezio
831 F. Supp. 2d 570 (N.D. New York, 2011)