Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-01157
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney, Judge Cronan denied reconsideration of the prior denial of Milchamot’s detention challenge.
The ruling directly affects petitioner Yehuda Milchamot’s effort to obtain reconsideration of the prior denial of his detention-related petition; the motion was denied.
What happened
In Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney, Yehuda Milchamot asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial, without prejudice, of his petition challenging his detention. The earlier order said he used the wrong federal law and had not first completed available state-court remedies.
Milchamot argued that his detention violated New York’s speedy-trial law. The court said that argument did not show that it had overlooked controlling law or important facts, that the law had changed, or that its earlier order contained a clear error. The court also found no other basis for setting aside the order.
Judge John P. Cronan denied Milchamot’s motion under both reconsideration rules and the rule allowing relief from a judgment or order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Milchamot v. Chief Bronx District Attorney · No. 1:25-cv-01157
- John Cronan
- May 5, 2025
Background
Yehuda Milchamot moved for reconsideration of the Court’s March 31, 2025 Order, which denied without prejudice his petition challenging his detention. The earlier Order held that, as a pretrial detainee, Milchamot had improperly filed the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and had not exhausted available state-court remedies for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Motion for Reconsideration
The Court treated Milchamot’s filing as seeking to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Reconsideration generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Milchamot did not identify controlling legal authority or relevant facts that the Court had overlooked, or any change in controlling law. He broadly argued that his detention was unlawful under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30, which protects a state-law right to a speedy trial. The Court held that this argument did not address its earlier conclusions that § 2254 was not the proper vehicle for his petition and that he had not exhausted state-court remedies for purposes of § 2241.
Rule 60(b) Relief
Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or other circumstances justifying relief. The Court concluded that Milchamot’s motion showed no basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5). It also found no extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
Disposition
The Court denied Milchamot’s motion. It 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 Clerk was directed to close Docket Number 13.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.