Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 28, 2025

Whitehead v. Warden

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-00594
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bishoplamor Whitehead v. United States, Judge Swain denied Whitehead’s habeas petition without prejudice because it was filed too early.

Who this affects

Bishoplamor Whitehead, whose petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied without prejudice and whose requested appeal-related permissions were denied.

What happened

Bishoplamor Whitehead v. United States involved a petition asking the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The court treated the petition as a motion under a federal law allowing prisoners to challenge their convictions or sentences after conviction.

The court denied the petition without prejudice because it was filed prematurely. It also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, finding that the petition did not substantially show a violation of a constitutional right. The court further denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Judge Laura Swain’s judgment was entered on May 28, 2025. The judgment refers to a May 27 order for the reasons supporting the decision, but that order is not included in the provided text.

The detailed version

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

Case
Whitehead v. Warden · No. 1:25-cv-00594
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 28, 2025

Background

Bishoplamor Whitehead filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court construed the petition as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a statute that permits a federal prisoner to challenge the legality of the conviction or sentence. The judgment states that the court’s reasons were set out in an order dated May 27, 2025; that order is not part of the provided opinion text.

Ruling

The court denied the petition without prejudice as prematurely filed. The phrase “without prejudice” means the judgment did not state that refiling was barred, but the provided text does not explain what future filing might be permitted or when.

The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Disposition

The petition was denied without prejudice. The certificate of appealability was denied, and in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to proceed without paying filing fees—was denied for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Swain was identified as the judge in the case information supplied with the opinion.

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.