Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 2, 2025

Milchamot v. Warden of O.B.C.C.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-03528
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Milchamot v. Warden of O.B.C.C., Judge Swain dismissed the action, denied an appeal fee waiver, and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Who this affects

Petitioner Yehudah Milchamot’s action was dismissed. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

What happened

In Milchamot v. Warden of O.B.C.C., the court entered judgment dismissing the action for the reasons given in an April 30, 2025 order.

The court denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It also stated that the petition did not substantially show a violation of a constitutional right, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on May 2, 2025. The provided judgment does not include the April 30 order, so it does not explain the basis for dismissal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Milchamot v. Warden of O.B.C.C. · No. 1:25-cv-03528
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 2, 2025

Disposition

The court dismissed the action “for the reasons stated” in its April 30, 2025 order. That earlier order is not included in the provided text, so the basis for dismissal cannot be determined from this judgment alone.

Appeal-related rulings

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The court also stated that the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied and ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

Unclear from the provided text

The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was based on the merits, a procedural defect, jurisdiction, or another ground. It also does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.