Braxton v. Tellez et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court dismisses without prejudice the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, denies in forma pauperis s tatus 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 enter judgment, mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Petitioner at his address of record, and close this case. Ordered by Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie on 4/26/2021. (Piper, Francine)

Clerk’s Office
Filed Date:
4/27/2021

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK
BROOKLYN OFFICE

--------------------------------------------------------------SAVINO BRAXTON,
Petitioner,
v.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
20-CV-6352 (MKB)

WARDEN H. TELLEZ, BENCIBLE, Case
Manager, and ALAMO, Counsel, in their
individual and official capacities,
Respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Savino Braxton, proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at the United
States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP Lewisburg”), filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on December 16, 2020, challenging the conditions
of his confinement at the Metropolitan Detention Center (the “MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York.
(Pet., Docket Entry No. 1.) On March 24, 2021, Respondents requested that the Court transfer
the petition to the district where Petitioner is currently confined. (Letter dated Mar. 24, 2021,
Docket Entry No. 7.)
For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses the petition without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction.
I.

Background
In February of 2013, Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of heroin with the intent to

distribute before Judge Richard D. Bennett of the District of Maryland and was sentenced to
twenty years of imprisonment. United States v. Braxton, No. 09-CR-478, 2020 WL 4748536, at
*1 (D. Md. Aug. 17, 2020). On August 11, 2020, Judge James K. Bredar of the District of

Maryland granted in part Petitioner’s motion for compassionate release due to the COVID-19
pandemic, reducing his sentence from twenty years to fourteen. Id. at *5. Judge Bredar noted,
among other facts, that Petitioner had contracted COVID-19 at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Danbury, Connecticut (“FCI Danbury”). Id. at *1.
On October 19, 2020, Petitioner was sent from FCI Danbury with an intended destination
of USP Lewisburg. (Pet. 5.) He was transferred to the MDC en route to USP Lewisburg, and
remained at the MDC for an extended period of time while awaiting transfer. (Id.) Petitioner
alleges that he was confined in substandard conditions and exposed to COVID-19 at the MDC.
(Id. at 6.) On October 19, 2020, the Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP”) transported Petitioner with
other inmates, placed him in a group with pre-trial detainees, then moved him to quarantine with
the group after two unidentified inmates tested positive for COVID-19. (Id.) An officer
declined to identify who tested positive. (Id.) On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff was released
from quarantine. (Id.)
While in quarantine, Petitioner wrote the warden and asked for home confinement but
received no response. (Id.) On November 17, 2020, Petitioner again wrote the warden through
Trulincs asking for home confinement and again received no response. (Id. at 7.)
On December 4, 2020, “the entire [] MDC” was placed in quarantine due to the spread of
COVID-19 in the facility. (Id.) As of December 6, 2020, the date of his petition, Petitioner had
not seen a doctor, counselor, or case manager, had only been issued one change of clothing, and
had experienced unsanitary, crowded conditions. (Id. at 7–8.) He had only been able to visit the
commissary twice to buy necessary toiletries. (Id.) Petitioner also contends that “mas[k]wearing is not mandated,” units are not swept or mopped daily, and inmates receive insufficient
soap. (Id. at 8.) Inmates can only wash their clothing once a week and “are forced to pay

2

another inmate in the housing units to [wash] their belonging[s,] which some inmates cannot
afford to pay,” the facility is kept at an excessively cold temperature, and counselors and case
managers “are ‘never’ available.” (Id. at 14.) Petitioner alleges that his age and pre-existing
chronic health conditions place him at heightened risk should he contract COVID-19 again. (Id.
at 8.)
Petitioner contends that (1) the BOP exhibited “deliberate indifference” by moving him
into detention with people “who ha[d] just been detained off the street” where COVID-19 was
surging, (2) his lengthy detention at the MDC rendered him no longer eligible for a substance
abuse program that would have further reduced his sentence, (3) the unsanitary conditions at the
MDC and the facts noted above violate “[his] constitutional rights,” so he is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States,” and (4) Respondents violated his due
process rights by not responding to his requests for home confinement. (Id. at 8–9.) Petitioner
requests relief consisting of: (1) the Court’s assumption of subject matter jurisdiction “over the
current 2241 petition,” (2) the appointment of counsel, (3) a “temporary restraining order,
preliminary injunction, [and/or] habeas corpus relief,” (4) either a reduction of his sentence to
time served or an order directing the warden “to strongly consider” granting Petitioner home
confinement, and (5) a court order as to conditions at the MDC, directing that the facility (a)
order counselors and case managers “to be more transparent” to fulfill inmates’ needs, (b) issue
more soap and hand sanitizer, (c) keep the facility at a more appropriate temperature, and
(d) wash all inmates’ clothing and linen free of charge every week. (Id. at 11, 15.)

3

Plaintiff has since been transferred from the MDC and is now incarcerated at USP
Lewisburg. 1
On March 24, 2021, Respondents requested that the Court transfer the petition to the
Middle District of Pennsylvania because Plaintiff is now incarcerated at USP Lewisburg. 2
(Letter dated Mar. 24, 2021.)
II. Discussion
“Article III of the Constitution limits [federal courts’] subject-matter jurisdiction to
‘disputes involving “live cases and controversies.”’” Ciaprazi v. Jacobson, 719 F. App’x 86, 87
(2d Cir. 2018) (quoting County of Suffolk v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 2010)). “A
case is deemed moot where the problem sought to be remedied has ceased, and where there is no
reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” Williams v. Annucci, 895 F.3d 180, 187
(2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Prins v. Coughlin, 76 F.3d 504, 506 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam)). “It is
settled in [the Second] Circuit that a transfer from a prison facility moots an action for injunctive
relief against the transferring facility.” Prins, 76 F.3d at 506 (citing Young v. Coughlin, 866 F.2d
567, 568 n.1 (2d Cir. 1989)); Ciaprazi, 719 F. App’x at 87 (“A prisoner’s release moots an action
seeking injunctive relief against the prison, but not an action seeking damages.” (citing Prins, 76
F.3d at 506)).
The Court lacks jurisdiction over the motion because it is moot. Petitioner filed the
instant section 2241 habeas petition while he was incarcerated at the MDC and sought injunctive

1

See Find an Inmate, BOP.Gov, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (enter “Savino
Braxton” under the “Name” tab).
2

On April 13, 2021, Petitioner filed a letter noting that Respondents had missed their
deadline to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and requested judgment in his favor.
(Letter dated Apr. 13, 2021, Docket Entry No. 8.)
4

relief in the form of an order addressing conditions at the MDC, releasing him to home
confinement, or directing the warden to consider his request for home confinement. (Pet. 1.)
Petitioner properly brought his petition in this Court when it was filed. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004) (“Whenever a [section] 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his
present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and
file the petition in the district of confinement.”); United States v. Smalling, 644 F. App’x 3, 5 (2d
Cir. 2016) (same (citing Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 447)); Jabarah v. Garcia, No. 08-CV-3592, 2010
WL 3834663, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2010) (“The proper venue to bring a [section] 2241
challenge is the district of confinement.” (citing Santulli v. United States, 02-CV-8664, 2003 WL
21488084, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2003))). However, after Petitioner filed his section 2241
petition, he was moved to USP Lewisburg, which is located in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. (Letter dated Mar. 24, 2021.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim for injunctive relief
against the MDC or its personnel is moot, and the Court therefore dismisses the claim without
prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See Hill v. Zenk, 115 F. App’x 97 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Because
[the petitioner] brought his action for relief against the warden of a facility in which he concedes
he is no longer incarcerated, his petition for relief is moot.” (citing Prins, 76 F.3d at 506)); Gunn
v. McNeil, No. 19-CV-11821, 2020 WL 7647422, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2020) (finding the
plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief moot because the plaintiff was no longer an inmate at the
New York facility (citing Prins, 76 F.3d at 506)); Betancourt v. United States, No. 20-CV-3390,
2020 WL 7321376, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2020) (dismissing section 2241 petition because the
petitioner had been transferred from the MDC and advising the petitioner that “he may re-file his
petition in the United States [d]istrict [c]ourt where he is currently confined”); Razzoli v. Strada,
No. 10-CV-4802, 2013 WL 837277, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2013) (“[The petitioner] . . .

5

challenges the conditions of and circumstances surrounding his confinement . . . at MDC. As he
is no longer detained at MDC, the petition is moot. As such, the request for a hearing is
denied.”); Harrison v. Terrel, No. 11-CV-3974, 2012 WL 3780328, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31,
2012) (“[O]nce [the] [p]etitioner was transferred from MDC . . . to FCI Otisville, his [s]ection
2241 claim against MDC . . . became moot, as he was no longer confined at that facility and its
warden no longer had custody over him.”); O’Brien v. Terrell, No. 10-CV-3042, 2012 WL
2394809, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 25, 2012) (finding section 2241 habeas petition challenging
conditions of confinement at MDC moot when the petitioner was transferred to home
confinement). 3

3

To the extent Petitioner’s filing can be construed as a motion for further reduction of
his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, it is dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner must
direct such motions to the court that sentenced him. See Betancourt v. United States, No. 20CV-3390, 2020 WL 7321376, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2020) (quoting United States v. Arrango,
291 F.3d 170, 171 (2d Cir. 2002)).
6

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses without prejudice the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that any appeal would not be
taken in good faith and, therefore, denies in forma pauperis status 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
enter judgment, mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Petitioner at his address of
record, and close this case.
Dated: April 26, 2021
Brooklyn, New York
SO ORDERED:
s/ MKB
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge

7