United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
COLLEEN McMAHON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the
validity of a pending indictment against him. At the time,
Petitioner was in pretrial detention at Kirby Forensic
Psychiatric Center (Kirby). On April 26, 2018, the Court
directed Petitioner, within thirty days, to either pay the
filing fee to bring this habeas corpus action or
submit an in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
application. Because Petitioner failed to comply with that
order, on June 6, 2018, the Court dismissed this action
without prejudice. But a week later, Petitioner paid the
filing fee for this action.
light of Petitioner's pro se status and belated
payment of the filing fee, the Court vacates its June 6, 2018
order and judgment. For the reasons discussed below, however,
the Court denies the petition without prejudice.
Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus from a person in custody challenging the legality
of his detention on the ground that “[h]e is in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Court
has the authority to review the petition and “award the
writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause
why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from
the application that the applicant or person detained is not
entitled [to such relief].” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 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 Williams v.
Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 (2d Cir. 1983).
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)).
28 U.S.C. § 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.”
But before seeking § 2241 habeas relief, a
state pretrial detainee must first exhaust his available
state-court remedies. United States ex rel. Scranton v.
New York, 532 F.2d 292, 294 (2d Cir. 1976) (“While
[§ 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.”).
fails to allege any facts suggesting that he exhausted his
state-court remedies before filing this petition. Normally,
the Court would grant him leave to amend his pleading to show
such exhaustion, but it appears that Petitioner was released
from Kirby after the filing of this petition. The Court
therefore denies Petitioner habeas corpus relief,
and dismisses this action without prejudice. If Petitioner
wishes to challenge his current custody, he may file a new
habeas corpus petition.
Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to
Petitioner at the following address: B/C# 8951800579, George
R. Vierno Center, 09-09 Hazen Street, East Elmhurst, New York
11370. The Clerk of Court is also directed to note service on
Court vacates its June 6, 2018 order and judgment. The Court
denies Plaintiff habeas corpus relief, and dismisses
this action without prejudice.
the petition makes no substantial showing of a denial of a
constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not
issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
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. ...