Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 15, 2025

Milchamot v. New York City Dept. of Corrections

Judge
Kimba Wood
Docket
1:25-cv-04971
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Milchamot v. New York City Dept. of Corrections, Judge Wood denied a Section 2241 habeas application, declined a certificate of appealability, and denied appeal fee status.

Who this affects

Yehudah Tziyონkeish Milchamot’s habeas application and ability to pursue an appeal without a certificate of appealability or advance payment of court fees were affected; the New York City Department of Corrections was the respondent.

What happened

In Milchamot v. New York City Dept. of Corrections, the court denied Yehudah Tziyონkeish Milchamot’s application for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2241. The judgment gives no facts about the application and refers to a separate order dated July 11, 2025 for the reasons.

The court also repeated a warning from a prior related proceeding. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is a court document generally required for certain habeas appeals, because Milchamot had not made the required showing that a constitutional right was denied.

Judge Kimba Wood’s judgment further stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The judgment was entered on July 15, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
Milchamot v. New York City Dept. of Corrections · No. 1:25-cv-04971
Judge
Kimba Wood
Date
July 15, 2025

Ruling

The court denied Petitioner Yehudah Tziyონkeish Milchamot’s application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A habeas petition is a request for judicial review of allegedly unlawful custody or detention. The judgment states that the reasons appear in the court’s order dated July 11, 2025, but that order is not included in the provided text.

Appeal-Related Rulings

The court repeated a warning issued in a prior related proceeding. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 because Petitioner had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. A certificate of appealability is a court authorization required for certain habeas appeals.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed with an appeal without paying court fees.

Disposition and Classification

The judgment denied the Section 2241 habeas application, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Based on the provided judgment alone, the court’s merits reasoning and the basis for denying habeas relief cannot be determined. The matter is classified as a procedural order because the provided text does not show that the court reached the underlying habeas question.

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.