Walker v. Mills

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Accordingly, Walker's application for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 USC sec. 2241, is dismissed without prejudice. Because this petition presents no "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional ri ght," a Certificate of Appealability is Denied re: 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Walker is advised to raise any concerns re: the proceedings in his ongoing criminal case with his defense attorney and with the appropriate state cou rt. Although petitioner paid the filing fee to commence this action, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC sec. 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 pu rpose of an appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing Walker's petition without prejudice and to close this case for administrative purposes. (Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 6/6/2017) c/m Fwd. for Judgment. (Galeano, Sonia)

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------x
JERMAINE WALKER,
Petitioner,

MEMORAN DUM
AN D ORDER

-against17-CV-2308 (ENV)
WARDEN T. M ILLS ,
Respondent.

------------------------------------------------------------x
VITALIANO, D.J.
On April 14, 2017, petitioner Jermaine Walker, appearingpro se and currently detained
at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , challenging his pending prosecution in Brooklyn Supreme Court,
under Kings County docket number 20 I 6KN070509. See (Petiti on 2, ECF No. I). The petition
seeks Walker' s immediate re lease and the dismissal of all charges against him. (Id. at 8). On
June I , 2017, petitioner paid the statutory filing fee to commence thi s action. For the reasons
that follow, the petition is dismissed without prejudice.
Background
Petitioner complains that his cun-ent detention violates the Uni ted States Constitution, but
he provides no facts that show grounds for relief. (Id. at 6-9). The Court takes judicial notice
that peti tioner was arrested and is being held on various state criminal charges, including
attempted murder. See N.Y.C. Dep' t of Corr., Inmate Lookup Service, http://a073 -il sweb.nyc. gov/ in matelookup. (last visited June 5, 20 17) (petitioner identified by his book & case
number); N.Y. State Unified Ct. Sys., WebCriminal,

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcrim attorney/ Attorney Welcome. (last visited June 5, 2017)
(petitioner identified by his name and indictment numbers: Nos. 01180/2015 and 10053/2016).
Discussion
The Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 14, 1 Stat. 73, 81-82, conferred jurisdiction upon
federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners in the custody of the United States.

See McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 477-78, 111 S. Ct. 1454, 1461, 113 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1991).
That grant of jurisdiction is presently codified at 28 U .S.C. § 2241, which permits federal courts
to entertain habeas corpus petitions from federal prisoners "in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). "Section 2241 is
[also] available to state pre-trial detainees challenging their custody as being in violation of the
Constitution or federal law." Robinson v. Sposato, No. 1 l-CV-191, 2012 WL 1965631, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2012).
The grant of authority to federal courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus to an aggrieved
petitioner in state custody must be construed, however, with full respect for the nature of our
federal system and its recognition of the separate sovereignty of each state. That is why the
authority granted by§ 2241 cannot be used to "derail[] ... a pending state proceeding by
[permitting a petitioner] to litigate constitutional defenses [to state charges] prematurely in
federal court." Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. ofKy., 410 U.S. 484, 493, 93 S. Ct. 1123, 1129,
35 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1973); see also Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 591, 187 L.
Ed. 2d 505 (2013) (reiterating that, absent unusual circumstances, the abstention doctrine
developed in Younger v. Harris, 401U.S.37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971),
"preclude[s] federal intrusion into ongoing state criminal prosecutions"); Allen v. Maribal, No.
11-CV-2638, 2011WL3162675, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2011).

2

Here, Walker seeks his immediate release from state custody and the dismissal of the
I
I

state court criminal charges currently pending against him. But, he provides no facts or

I
!

circumstances that would militate against the abstention of the exercise of habeas jurisdiction
that ordinarily controls in cases like this. There might come a time at the conclusion of w·alk r's
1

state prosecution when federal habeas relief is appropriate, but nothing in the petition evJ
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I

remotely suggests that the time is now. As such, this Court will abstain from intervening in
petitioner's ongoing state court criminal prosecution.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Walker's application for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

~

2241, is dismissed without prejudice.
Because this petition presents no "substantial showing of the denial of a constituti nal
right," a certificate of appealability shall not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Walker is advised to raise any concerns regarding the proceedings in his ongoing
criminal case with his defense attorney and with the appropriate state court.
Although petitioner paid the filing fee to commence this action, the Court certifies)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in goo,
faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.

United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 920-21, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).

3

Coppe~ge v.

/S/ USDJ ERIC N. VITALIANO