Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-01157
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney, Judge Cronan ordered Yehuda Milchamot to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying upfront, or face denial.
Yehuda Milchamot, who must either pay the $5 filing fee or submit a completed and signed application to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days. The respondent was not required to answer at this stage.
What happened
In Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney, Yehuda Milchamot filed a petition asking for a court order concerning his detention or conviction, but the opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims. He filed neither the required $5 filing fee nor a completed and signed application to proceed without paying the fee upfront.
The court ordered Milchamot, within 30 days, either to pay the $5 fee or submit the completed and signed application. The court said no response to the petition was required at that time. If Milchamot did not comply, the court said it would deny the petition.
Judge John P. Cronan also ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue because the petition had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. He further ruled that any appeal could not proceed without prepaying fees because it would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney · No. 1:25-cv-01157
- John Cronan
- Feb. 11, 2025
Background
Yehuda Milchamot, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion does not explain the factual or legal basis of the petition. Milchamot submitted the petition without the required $5 filing fee and without a completed and signed application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying court fees.
Order
The court ordered Milchamot to pay the $5 filing fee or complete, sign, and submit the attached IFP application within 30 days of the order. The court stated that, if it granted the IFP application, Milchamot could proceed without prepaying the fee. No response to the petition was required at that point. The court stated that it would deny the petition if Milchamot failed to comply within the permitted time.
Appeal-related rulings and disposition
The court stated that, at that stage of the case, the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed filing requirements and appeal-related matters; it did not decide the underlying habeas claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.