Milchamot v. New York City Dept. of Corrections
- Kimba Wood
- 1:25-cv-04971
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Milchamot v. New York City Dept. of Corrections, Judge Wood denied reconsideration because state remedies were unexhausted and no extraordinary circumstances justified relief.
The ruling affects Yehudah Tziyon Keish Milchamot’s federal challenge to his ongoing Bronx County criminal proceedings. It leaves the prior denial and dismissal in place, closes the case, limits further filings to a notice of appeal, and denies permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Milchamot v. New York City Dept. of Corrections concerns Yehudah Tziyon Keish Milchamot’s federal petition challenging ongoing criminal proceedings in Bronx County, New York. The court had previously denied the petition because he had not shown that he had completed available state appeals or that unusual circumstances justified federal intervention.
Milchamot, who was representing himself, asked the court to reconsider. He asserted that he was innocent and alleged that several entities were conspiring to falsify charges against him. He also sought release or a bail order and submitted a record showing that a Bronx County court had denied an unspecified motion. The record did not show that he appealed that denial through New York’s appellate courts.
Judge Kimba M. Wood denied the reconsideration motion under the federal rule allowing relief from a judgment or order. The court found no qualifying reason for relief and no extraordinary circumstances. The case is closed; only a notice of appeal may be filed, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Milchamot v. New York City Dept. of Corrections · No. 1:25-cv-04971
- Kimba Wood
- Aug. 19, 2025
Background
Yehudah Tziyon Keish Milchamot filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for challenging certain forms of custody, concerning ongoing criminal proceedings in Bronx County, New York. On July 11, 2025, the court denied the petition because Milchamot had not alleged facts showing that he had exhausted available state-court remedies or that circumstances justified federal intervention in the ongoing state criminal proceedings. The court dismissed the action, and the Clerk entered judgment on July 15, 2025.
The court received Milchamot’s motion for reconsideration on August 13, 2025. He asserted his innocence, alleged that the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office, his landlord, and the New York City Police Department had been conspiring to falsify charges against him, and sought an order releasing him or a bail motion. He attached a New York State court-system record indicating that a Bronx County Supreme Court judge had denied an unspecified motion on May 7, 2025. The submission did not show that he had appealed that denial to the Appellate Division or the New York Court of Appeals.
Legal standard
The court treated the submission as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. For relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the moving party must show both that the motion was filed within a reasonable time and that extraordinary circumstances warrant relief.
Because the motion challenged the denial of a federal petition, the court explained that Rule 60(b) relief is available only when the motion attacks the integrity of the federal proceeding, rather than the underlying criminal case. The court also reiterated that a person seeking federal relief under Section 2241 must first exhaust available state-court remedies.
Ruling
The court denied the motion under the first five parts of Rule 60(b). It concluded that Milchamot had not shown that any of those grounds applied and had not demonstrated that he fully exhausted state remedies by appealing the Bronx County court’s denial.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6). It found that Milchamot had not shown extraordinary circumstances. The court stated that his challenges to the ongoing criminal proceedings must be raised in those proceedings, where he was represented by counsel, and that this federal court could provide only federal habeas relief after available state remedies had been exhausted.
Judge Kimba M. Wood denied the motion for reconsideration and stated that the matter was closed. No further documents may be filed in the case except a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court warned that additional frivolous or meritless filings could lead to an order requiring Milchamot to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents in the action. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.