Milton v. James
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00824
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Milton v. James, Judge Swain transferred Robert Milton’s habeas case to the Eastern District of New York without deciding its merits.
Robert Milton’s petition was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. Letitia James remains the named respondent. The order did not resolve the constitutional challenge.
What happened
Milton v. James concerns Robert Milton’s pro se petition challenging the constitutionality of his 2014 conviction in Queens County, New York. Milton is incarcerated at Wallkill Correctional Facility.
Because the conviction and sentence occurred in Queens County, the Southern District of New York determined that the case belonged in the Eastern District of New York and directed the Clerk to transfer it there. The Southern District closed the case there, while leaving any decision about fee payment to the receiving court.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The order did not decide whether Milton’s conviction was constitutional.
The detailed version
- Milton v. James · No. 1:25-cv-00824
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 29, 2025
Background
Robert Milton, who is incarcerated at Wallkill Correctional Facility, filed a petition without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged the constitutionality of his 2014 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. The respondent is Letitia James.
Transfer ruling
The Southern District of New York transferred the action under Local Civil Rule 83.3 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The court reasoned that Queens County, where Milton was convicted and sentenced, is located in the Eastern District. The order closed the case in the Southern District. It stated that the receiving court would decide whether Milton could proceed without paying fees.
Appeal-related rulings
The court stated that Milton had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The court did not decide the merits of Milton’s constitutional challenge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.