Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2025

Robertson v. United States Federal Bureau of Prisons

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-02533
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Robertson v. United States Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Swain dismissed a duplicate sentence-credit petition without prejudice.

Who this affects

Keith Robertson, whose duplicate petition was dismissed without prejudice; his identical petition under docket number 25-CV-2481 (LTS) remained pending.

What happened

In Robertson v. United States Federal Bureau of Prisons, Keith Robertson filed a petition challenging how his sentence credits under the First Step Act were being calculated. He was incarcerated at FCI Otisville and represented himself.

The court found that Robertson had already filed an identical petition in a separate case, docket number 25-CV-2481 (LTS). The court dismissed this duplicate petition without prejudice to the pending case and directed that Robertson not be charged the $5 filing fee for this action.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to appeal without paying fees and stated that no certificate of appealability would issue. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Robertson v. United States Federal Bureau of Prisons · No. 1:25-cv-02533
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 1, 2025

Background

Keith Robertson, who was incarcerated at FCI Otisville and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenged the execution of his sentence, arguing that the wrong commencement date was being used to calculate his sentence credits under the First Step Act.

Reason for Dismissal

The court stated that Robertson had previously submitted an identical § 2241 petition, signed on the same date, in a case pending under docket number 25-CV-2481 (LTS). Because this petition was identical, the court determined that it appeared to have been submitted in error and that filing and litigating a duplicate lawsuit would serve no useful purpose.

Ruling and Other Orders

The court dismissed the petition without prejudice to Robertson’s pending case under docket number 25-CV-2481 (LTS). The clerk was directed not to charge Robertson the $5 filing fee for this action. The court noted that the filing fee, or an application to proceed without paying it, should be addressed in the pending case.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. The clerk was directed to enter judgment. The order dismissed this duplicate action and did not decide the sentence-credit challenge on its merits.

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.