Jones v. Warden Carter of GRVC

Background

Jones filed this petition under Section 2241, a federal law that allows certain challenges to custody or related legal proceedings. The petition challenged ongoing criminal proceedings in the Bronx Supreme Criminal Court under indictment number 70616-21. Jones filed without a lawyer.

In an order issued on November 6, 2023, the Court had barred Jones from filing future Section 2241 petitions without first obtaining permission from the Court. The bar applied to petitions filed without paying the filing fee and arising from his ongoing Bronx County criminal proceedings. The Court imposed the bar because of Jones’s continuous submission of petitions it considered frivolous. The earlier order was issued in a prior related proceeding, No. 23-CV-8296 (S.D.N.Y.).

Earlier dismissal and later submissions

Jones filed the present petition on January 3, 2025. On February 3, 2025, the Court dismissed it under the earlier filing bar because it again challenged the ongoing Bronx County proceedings and Jones had not requested permission to file.

After that dismissal, the Court received three letters, two additional petitions, and a document titled “Motion to Clarify Confusion.” Although some of these documents were dated before the February 3 dismissal, the Court reviewed them in light of Jones’s status as a self-represented litigant.

Ruling

The Court determined that none of the later submissions changed its decision to dismiss the petition under the earlier filing bar. It reminded Jones that the case was closed and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions.

The Court also determined that the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is the document required for certain appeals in a federal habeas case. The Court further certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jones permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

The opinion did not decide the merits of Jones’s challenges to the underlying criminal proceedings; the petition remained dismissed because of the filing bar and the lack of prior permission.