Starke v. Fuentes
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-03108
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Starke v. Fuentes, Judge Swain denied emergency release and other preliminary injunctive relief.
The order affects Charles Bernard Starke, Jr.’s requests for immediate release, intervention in his state criminal proceedings, and other preliminary injunctive relief. It does not decide the claims in his underlying complaint, which the court said it would address later.
What happened
In Starke v. Fuentes, Charles Bernard Starke, Jr., who is detained in the Rockland County Jail and represents himself, sued several defendants over his arrest and detention. He asked for immediate release, a declaration invalidating the state proceedings, and orders stopping further detention or interference.
The court found that Starke had not shown a likely success on his claims or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with hardships favoring relief. It said federal intervention in an ongoing state criminal case was likely barred by a rule limiting such interference, and that release from custody must generally be sought through a separate petition challenging the detention rather than through this civil-rights case. Starke also had not alleged that he had completed available state-court remedies.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Starke’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, including his emergency requests and request for an expedited hearing. The court said it would address the complaint’s claims later and denied permission to appeal without paying fees because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Starke v. Fuentes · No. 7:25-cv-03108
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
Charles Bernard Starke, Jr., who is detained in the Rockland County Jail and is representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named Officer Fuentes, Officer O’Dell, Judge Kevin F. Russo, the Rockland County Sheriff’s Department, the Rockland County Jail, the Clerk of the Court of Rockland County, and the State of New York as defendants. His complaint seeks money damages, declarations, and court orders concerning his arrest and detention in Rockland County.
With the complaint, Starke filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and immediate release, an affidavit supporting that motion, and a motion for an expedited hearing. He alleged that he was unlawfully arrested, falsely imprisoned, and denied bail by Judge Russo. He asked the federal court to release him, declare that the state proceedings were void for lack of jurisdiction, and prevent further retaliation, detention, or interference.
Court’s analysis
To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, Starke had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions to justify litigation with the balance of hardships strongly favoring him. The court described this relief as an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing.
The court concluded that Starke’s submissions did not satisfy that standard. It said that the federal intervention he requested in a pending state criminal proceeding was likely barred by the Younger abstention doctrine, which generally prevents a federal court from stopping an ongoing state criminal case absent special circumstances such as bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury. The court found that Starke had alleged no facts showing such circumstances.
The court also explained that a person generally cannot obtain release from custody through a civil-rights action under § 1983. A request challenging the fact or duration of confinement must instead be brought through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a court filing seeking release from unlawful custody, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241. Although § 2241 does not expressly contain an exhaustion requirement, courts have interpreted it to require exhaustion of available state-court remedies. Because Starke alleged no facts showing that he had exhausted those remedies, the court declined to treat his filing as a § 2241 petition.
Ruling
The court denied Starke’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, including the emergency motion, supporting affidavit, and motion for an expedited hearing. The court stated that it would address the claims in the complaint in due course, so this order did not resolve those claims.
The court also 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 filing fees. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain on April 25, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.