Nazer v. Manhattan District Attorney

Background

Izzat Nazer, who was detained at the Eric M. Taylor Center on Rikers Island, filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention and prosecution in Manhattan Supreme Criminal Court. The petition raised claims concerning equal protection, due process, defense counsel’s waiver of his opportunity to testify before the grand jury, counsel’s request for a mental-fitness examination, counsel’s failure to seek release, the denial of a request to replace counsel, and the timing of his indictment under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 180.80.

Nazer sought release, new counsel, an order addressing the mental-fitness examination, dismissal of the criminal charges, and an order recommending that criminal charges be brought against the person he was charged with assaulting. He stated that he had filed a state habeas petition and appealed an order denying an unspecified request to dismiss the charges, but he acknowledged that those filings did not address the federal constitutional issues raised in this case.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Section 2241 provides a limited way for a state pretrial detainee to challenge detention. Federal courts generally must refrain from interfering with an ongoing state criminal proceeding unless special circumstances exist, such as a right that cannot be protected after trial or a request for relief collateral to the criminal case.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Nazer’s claims might present circumstances permitting review before the state case ended. It nevertheless held that exhaustion of state remedies was required. Nazer did not allege that he had presented his federal constitutional claims to the state courts, and he did not show that he had appealed his state filings through the New York Court of Appeals. He also did not provide facts showing that the failure to exhaust should be excused.

The court separately held that Nazer could not use this federal case to initiate criminal charges against another person. Decisions about whether to prosecute belong to prosecutors, and neither a private citizen nor the court can direct prosecutors to bring a criminal case.

Disposition

The court denied the Section 2241 petition without prejudice. It also dismissed Nazer’s claims seeking initiation of a criminal prosecution; the opinion did not attach a separate prejudice qualifier to that dismissal. The court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

Prior Related Proceeding

The court noted that Nazer had previously filed a Section 2241 petition in this court, No. 23-CV-3798 (S.D.N.Y.), and had been informed that state remedies must be exhausted before seeking federal relief.