Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 18, 2025

McClellon v. Peters

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-01767
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In McClellon v. Peters, Judge Swain moved the petition into a related case and dismissed this action without prejudice.

Who this affects

Donte McClellon, whose separate petition was docketed as a supplemental petition in an earlier related proceeding and whose current case was dismissed without prejudice; the respondents were not required to litigate this separate action.

What happened

In McClellon v. Peters, Donte McClellon challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ failure to credit him for completing programs and activities under the First Step Act.

McClellon had already filed a substantially similar petition seeking the same relief in an earlier related proceeding that was still pending. The court treated this petition as an addition to that proceeding.

The court directed the clerk to docket the petition there and dismissed this case without prejudice. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McClellon v. Peters · No. 1:25-cv-01767
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 18, 2025

Background

Donte McClellon, who had been incarcerated at FCI Otisville and appeared to be living in a halfway house in Washington State, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He relied on the First Step Act and argued that the Bureau of Prisons had failed to credit him for completing evidence-based programs to reduce repeat offenses and other productive activities. He also asserted that he was eligible to earn those credits and had completed the Bureau of Prisons’ administrative process.

McClellon had previously filed a substantially similar petition seeking the same relief in an earlier related proceeding, which remained pending before another judge of the Southern District of New York.

Court’s Action

The court construed the new petition as a supplemental petition in the earlier related proceeding. It directed the clerk to docket the petition in that proceeding and dismissed this action without prejudice.

The court also determined that the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.