Milchamot v. Chief, Bronx District Attorney

Background

Yehuda Milchamot, identified as the petitioner, was detained on Rikers Island and filed a petition without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged ongoing criminal proceedings arising from an October 10, 2024 arrest in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, and Bronx Criminal Court. He alleged that documents in the case were false, that there was no “True Bill of Particulars,” that the District Attorney’s Office, his defense lawyer, and the New York State Unified Court System were conspiring against him, and that evidence had been suppressed or did not exist.

Milchamot asked the federal court to transfer his criminal cases there and sought to file several motions, including motions to dismiss the indictment, represent himself, suppress evidence, and obtain pretrial hearings. He also filed a notice seeking to remove his criminal case to federal court. The court states that the removal case was remanded to state court on December 16, 2024.

Analysis

The court applied the rule allowing early dismissal of a federal petition when the petition and attached materials show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. It explained that Section 2254 is used by a person held under a state-court judgment of conviction. Because no judgment of conviction had been entered in either of Milchamot’s cases, the court held that he could not use Section 2254 to challenge those proceedings. The court also stated that a person seeking relief under Section 2254 must first exhaust available state remedies, and Milchamot’s filing did not show that he had done so.

The court declined to interpret the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which it described as the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of pretrial detention. The court found that Milchamot had not exhausted state remedies and that, given his October 10, 2024 arrest, it was clear from his submission that he had not done so. The court also explained that federal courts generally must not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings unless there are special circumstances such as bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury. It found that Milchamot alleged no facts establishing those circumstances.

Disposition

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Milchamot’s Section 2254 petition without prejudice and declined to construe it as a Section 2241 petition. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the notice to dismiss the indictment as moot. It stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.