Phelps v. Superintendent
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-10352
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Phelps v. Superintendent, Judge Failla barred Phelps from filing more papers in this closed case without court permission.
Darryl Phelps is barred from filing additional papers in this action without the court’s permission; future filings may be stricken from the docket.
What happened
Phelps v. Superintendent began as a petition seeking Darryl Phelps’s release from incarceration because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The case was resolved, and after Phelps was released on parole during an appeal, the appeals court directed the district court to dismiss the petition as moot.
After the dismissal, Phelps filed several documents seeking injunctions, damages, and challenges to his parole conditions, sex-offender registration requirement, and other matters. The court said those issues might be raised in a new, separate lawsuit, but could not be added to this closed case.
Judge Failla barred Phelps from filing further papers in this case without the court’s permission under the All Writs Act. The court said future filings could be removed from the docket without another order and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 61.
The detailed version
- Phelps v. Superintendent · No. 1:20-cv-10352
- Katherine Failla
- July 8, 2024
Background
This case concerned Phelps’s 2020 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking release from incarceration because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petition was resolved on June 7, 2021. During Phelps’s appeal, he was released on parole. The Second Circuit therefore vacated the district court’s judgment and sent the case back with instructions to dismiss the petition as moot. The district court dismissed the petition on March 28, 2022.
On June 17, 2024, the court warned Phelps that future submissions would result in a filing ban because the case was closed and the court could not provide assistance or relief concerning his current incarceration or the charges underlying it. After that warning, Phelps filed several additional documents. They sought, among other things, temporary and permanent injunctions, damages from a former parole officer, relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to New York’s parole procedures, and relief concerning his obligation to register as a sex offender under New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that Phelps might be able to challenge his parole conditions, including sex-offender registration, or seek relief for other alleged injuries by starting a new, independent lawsuit. It explained that those challenges could not be brought in this case because this case involved only the already-dismissed petition seeking release from incarceration. The court cited decisions recognizing possible avenues for challenging parole conditions through a new proceeding, but it did not decide the merits of Phelps’s new allegations.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla enjoined Phelps from filing further papers on the docket of this action, No. 20 Civ. 10352, without leave of the court, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The court stated that any further filings could be stricken from the docket without further order. It also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 61 and send Phelps a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.