Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-01157
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney, Judge Cronan construed the petition under Section 2241 but denied it without prejudice for failure to show exhaustion.
Yehuda Milchamot's federal challenge to his pretrial custody was denied without prejudice. The order also declined amendment, denied a certificate of appealability and appeal-related fee-waiver status, and warned him about possible future filing restrictions and sanctions.
What happened
Yehuda Milchamot, who was being held before trial while his Bronx County criminal case continued, asked for release through a petition filed under Section 2254. In Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney, the court said Section 2241, rather than Section 2254, was the correct type of petition for challenging pretrial custody.
The court denied the petition without prejudice because Milchamot did not allege facts showing that he had first used available state-court remedies. The court also declined to allow him to amend, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied his request to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal.
Judge John P. Cronan warned that additional frivolous or abusive habeas filings could lead to restrictions on future filings and that disrespectful language directed at district judges could lead to sanctions. The court ordered judgment terminating the action.
The detailed version
- Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney · No. 1:25-cv-01157
- John Cronan
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Yehuda Milchamot filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island. His state criminal proceedings in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, were still pending, and he sought release while awaiting trial, including release subject to conditions such as electronic monitoring or house arrest. Milchamot represented himself.
Habeas petition
The court explained that Section 2254 applies to a person held under a state-court judgment. Because Milchamot was a pretrial detainee and had not been convicted in the pending state case, the court recharacterized his petition as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the provision used to challenge certain custody that allegedly violates federal law.
A person seeking Section 2241 relief generally must first exhaust available state-court remedies. The court found that Milchamot alleged no facts showing that he had done so. It therefore denied the petition without prejudice, meaning the order did not permanently bar another petition. The court did not address the merits of whether Milchamot was entitled to release.
Leave to amend
The court concluded that leave to amend was not warranted. It noted that, in a prior related proceeding, Milchamot had been told that Section 2241—not Section 2254—was the proper vehicle for challenging pretrial custody and that state remedies had to be exhausted first. The court stated that he had been on notice of those requirements but had not attempted to conform his petition to them.
Warnings and appeal-related rulings
The court warned that further vexatious, frivolous, or otherwise nonmeritorious habeas litigation could result in an order barring Milchamot from filing future habeas actions in the Southern District of New York challenging his pretrial detention unless he first obtained court permission. It also warned that further language of the type the court considered directed at district judges could result in sanctions.
The court ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Milchamot permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment terminating the action.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.