Milchamot v. New York City Dept. of Corrections

Background

Yehudah Tziyon Keish Milchamot filed this pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal statute that can allow a person held before trial to challenge the legality of the detention. The opinion states that he was being held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island and that Bronx Supreme Court proceedings charged him with attempted murder in the second degree. He appeared to seek dismissal of those charges based on an alleged violation of his right to a speedy trial. He also cited the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the 1863 Enrollment Act.

The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court was required to read his filings liberally because he had no lawyer, but explained that this did not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive legal requirements.

Reasons for the Ruling

First, the court held that it could not consider the petition because Milchamot did not assert that he had exhausted available state-court remedies. The court explained that a pretrial detainee seeking federal habeas relief generally must first give the state courts a full opportunity to address the federal claim. New York courts provide a way to raise a speedy-trial claim, but the petition did not show that Milchamot had used that or another available state remedy.

Second, the court applied the Younger abstention doctrine. This doctrine generally prevents a federal court from interfering with a pending state criminal prosecution unless special circumstances exist, such as bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury. The court found that Milchamot had alleged no facts showing those circumstances and therefore declined to intervene in his state criminal proceeding.

Disposition

The court denied the application for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241. It denied leave to amend because the court concluded that amendment could not cure the petition's defects. The court repeated a warning from a prior related proceeding that continued vexatious, frivolous, or otherwise nonmeritorious habeas litigation could result in a filing injunction; the prior proceeding is identified in the opinion as No. 25-CV-1157 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025).

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Milchamot had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Kimba M. Wood directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.