Lewis v. Ask-Carlson
Filing
9
DECISION AND ORDER. In any event, as a result of her conviction, petitioner's request for release from pre-trial detention is moot. See Reed v. Caulfield, 734 F. Supp. 2d 23, 24 (D. D.C. 2010) (citing Thorne v. Warden, 479 F.2d 297 (2d Cir.1973)). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the petition. 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). (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 10/29/2014) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (Weisberg, Peggy)
C/M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
:
REGINA LEWIS,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
- against :
:
K. ASK-CARLSON (WARDEN), MDC
:
BROOKLYN,
:
:
Respondent.
:
:
-----------------------------------------------------------X
DECISION & ORDER
14 Civ. 6249 (BMC)
COGAN, United States District Judge:
Before me is a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed pro se
during the pendency of petitioner’s criminal prosecution in this Court for threatening a United
States Judge. See United States v. Lewis, No. 12-CR-655 (BMC). The petition challenged her
pretrial detention and sought her release. By order dated September 9, 2014, the Court granted
petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. On October 27, 2014, petitioner was
convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). She currently is incarcerating pending
sentencing, which has been set for January 28, 2015.
At the time she filed this proceeding, it was premature. “Where a defendant is awaiting
trial, the appropriate vehicle for violations of h[er] constitutional rights are pretrial motions or
the expedited appeal procedure provided by the Bail Reform Act, . . . and not a habeas corpus
petition.” Ali v. United States, No. 12-CV-0816, 2012 WL 4103867, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 14,
2012) (quoting Whitmer v. Levi, 276 F. App’x 217, 219 (3d Cir. April 28, 2008)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Here, as in Ali, “[a]dequate remedies [we]re available in petitioner's
criminal case, and, therefore, petitioner [wa]s not entitled to habeas corpus relief.”1
In any event, as a result of her conviction, petitioner’s request for release from pre-trial
detention is moot. See Reed v. Caulfield, 734 F. Supp. 2d 23, 24 (D. D.C. 2010) (citing Thorne
v. Warden, 479 F.2d 297 (2d Cir.1973)).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the petition. 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).
SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by Brian M.
Cogan
______________________________________
U.S.D.J.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
October 28, 2014
1
In fact, petitioner brought an effectively identical challenge in the form of a motion to dismiss
her indictment and for release, which the Court (Hellerstein, J.) denied on March 20, 2014,
finding the duration of petitioner’s confinement legal and constitutional.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?