Milchamot v. His Assassins

Background

Yehudah Milchamot, who was detained on Rikers Island and proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his ongoing criminal proceedings in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. The proceedings arose from an October 10, 2024 arrest. The court had previously allowed Milchamot to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The court stated that this was Milchamot’s fifth § 2254 petition filed in the district. It also noted that he had filed a notice seeking to move his criminal case from state court to federal court, and that the federal court had remanded that matter to state court. The court did not reproduce the names of those earlier proceedings in this order.

Court’s Analysis

Under § 2254, a federal court may review a habeas petition filed on behalf of a person held under a state-court judgment, on the ground that the custody violates federal constitutional or legal rights. The court held that § 2254 did not apply because no judgment of conviction had been entered in Milchamot’s state case. The court also stated that a person seeking federal habeas relief must first exhaust available state remedies, and Milchamot had not shown that he had done so.

The court declined to recharacterize the filing as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which can be used to challenge the constitutionality of pretrial detention. The court found no facts suggesting that Milchamot had exhausted state remedies. It further stated that, even if he had exhausted those remedies, the petition did not show why the federal court should intervene in the ongoing state criminal proceedings under the rule requiring federal courts generally to refrain from interfering with pending state criminal cases.

The court said that any challenges Milchamot wished to raise had to be presented in the ongoing state criminal proceedings.

Disposition

The court denied the § 2254 petition without prejudice and declined to construe it as a § 2241 petition. It directed the clerk to terminate all motions and enter judgment. The court kept in effect an earlier warning that additional frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise nonmeritorious habeas filings could lead to restrictions on future habeas filings without prior permission. It also kept in effect an earlier warning that abusive language toward district judges could result in sanctions.

The court determined that Milchamot had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional-right violation, so it did not issue a certificate of appealability. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on May 27, 2025.