Purvis-Mitchell v. Bacon et al

Filing 2

DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that the petition, Dkt. No. #1 , is DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Order on petitioner in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on October 13, 2020. (Copy served via regular mail)(rep)

Case 9:20-cv-01224-MAD Document 2 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TYLER PURVIS-MITCHELL,
Petitioner,
v.

9:20-CV-01224
(MAD)

ANTOINETTE T. BACON, Acting U.S. Attorney;
DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES MARSHAL
SERVICE; CRAIG APPLE, Sheriff of Albany County;
and all other persons exercising direct legal control
over petitioner,
Respondents.
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

TYLER PURVIS-MITCHELL
Petitioner, pro se
Albany County Correctional Facility
840 Albany Shaker Road
Albany, NY 12211
MAE A. D'AGOSTINO
United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Tyler Purvis-Mitchell seeks federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241. Dkt. No. 1, Petition ("Pet."). The same day the petition was filed, the Court also
received the statutory filing fee. See Dkt. Entry for Pet. (identifying receipt information for the
filing fee transaction).
II.

THE PETITION
It is difficult to decipher which criminal action petitioner challenges. Petitioner

identifies two pending criminal cases here in the Northern District of New York before the

Case 9:20-cv-01224-MAD Document 2 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 4

undersigned. Pet. at 2 (citing United States v. Purvis-Mitchell, No. 1:19-CR-0197 (MAD)
("Purvis-Mitchell I"); United States v. Purvis-Mitchell, No. 20-CR-0157 (MAD) ("Purvis-Mitchell
II")). During the last appearance for a representation hearing, on October 2, 2020, petitioner
was permitted to proceed pro se and informed that no criminal trials were currently taking
place due to the pandemic. See Purvis-Mitchell I, Text Minute Entry dated 10/02/20; PurvisMitchell II, Text Minute Entry dated 10/02/20. Furthermore, it was noted that the final
revocation hearing for Purvis-Mitchell I was adjourned without date, but would be addressed
closer to petitioner's trial for the charges in Purvis-Mitchell II; however, because no trials can
currently be held that date is unknown. See Purvis-Mitchell I, Text Minute Entry dated
10/02/20; Purvis-Mitchell II, Text Minute Entry dated 10/02/20. Petitioner was then
remanded to Albany County Correctional Facility. See Purvis-Mitchell I, Text Minute Entry
dated 10/02/20; Purvis-Mitchell II, Text Minute Entry dated 10/02/20.
Petitioner states that he is "commited [sic] for trial and a final revocation hearing as to
supervised release," and that his "custody [is] in violation of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th
amendment of the Constitution." Pet. at 2. Petitioner specifically contends that he is entitled
to federal habeas relief because (1) there was an unlawful parole warrant lodged against him
in contravention of the Fourth Amendment, id. at 3; (2) his court proceedings failed to comply
with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, id. at 4; (3) his due process rights
were violated by the unlawful parole warrant and the government's seizure of his cash and
cell phone, id. at 5-6; and (4) his Sixth Amendment rights were violated because several
court-appointed counsel have been so incompetent that petitioner was forced to represent
himself (id. at 6-8). For a complete statement of petitioner's claims, reference is made to the

2

Case 9:20-cv-01224-MAD Document 2 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 4

petition.
III.

DISCUSSION
Petitioner requests that this Court produce him and have a hearing regarding whether

"he should be given his liberty," essentially seeking release from custody. Pet. at 10.
However, petitioner's request seeks to have the Court intervene in a pending federal criminal
matter and order his release from detention.
"Under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), a federal district court must abstain
from adjudicating claims seeking to dismiss or enjoin pending state criminal proceedings."
Griffin v. Warden of Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr., No. 1:20-CV-1707, 2020 WL 1158070, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2020). While Younger applies explicitly to pending state court claims,
"federal courts have applied the abstention doctrine . . . when asked to enjoin or dismiss
enforcement of federal criminal proceedings." Ali v. United States, No. 12-CV-0816A, 2012
WL 4103867, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2012) (citing cases); see also Thomas v. Ramos, No.
1:20-CV-3422, 2020 WL 2192716, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020) (explaining Younger's
holding, that equitable principles compel federal courts to abstain from enjoining ongoing
criminal prosecutions whereupon the prosecution itself provides a legal remedy, and
concluding that "when asked to intervene in pending federal criminal proceedings, courts
have inevitably refused.") (citing cases).
Accordingly, this Court cannot provide petitioner with the relief requested; therefore,
the petition is dismissed. "If [petitioner] wishes to litigate the claims raised in this [petition] or
raise objections to the ongoing criminal proceedings, he should file the appropriate motion in
the criminal action." Thomas, 2020 WL 2192716, at *2. Furthermore, "if [petitioner] is not

3

Case 9:20-cv-01224-MAD Document 2 Filed 10/13/20 Page 4 of 4

satisfied with the result, he may raise the issue on direct appeal," or in a proper habeas
petition thereafter. Id.
IV.

CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is
ORDERED that the petition, Dkt. No. 1, is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Order on petitioner in

accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2020
Albany, New York

4