Milchamot v. Chief, Bronx District Attorney

Background

Yehudah Milchamot filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure for challenging state custody, concerning his ongoing criminal proceedings in Bronx County, New York. He was representing himself. On January 13, 2025, the court denied the petition without prejudice and declined to treat it as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The action was dismissed, and judgment was entered on January 28, 2025.

On February 10, 2025, the court received Milchamot’s motion for reconsideration. He argued that he had the right to challenge his detention and cited New York statutes governing state habeas proceedings. The court treated the filing as a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or other qualifying circumstances.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Milchamot had not shown that any of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied. It also concluded that he had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the provision covering other reasons that could justify relief. The court explained that a Rule 60(b) motion challenging the denial of a post-conviction petition can provide relief only when it attacks the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding, rather than the underlying criminal conviction.

The court stated that Milchamot’s challenges to his ongoing criminal proceedings must be raised in those proceedings, where he is represented by counsel. It also explained that he could file a state habeas petition only in the appropriate state court. Before filing a federal petition under Section 2254, he must first exhaust available state-court remedies, as the court had explained in its earlier order.

Disposition

The court denied Milchamot’s motion for reconsideration, including relief sought under each of the Rule 60(b) provisions discussed. The matter is closed in the district court. The court stated that it would accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and warned that it could require Milchamot to explain why further filings should not be barred if he submitted other frivolous or meritless documents.

The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the motion made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.