Malvezzi v. Warden
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-06850
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Malvezzi v. Warden, Judge Swain transferred James Malvezzi’s petition seeking release to New York’s Eastern District because his detention location was unclear.
James Malvezzi, whose release is sought; Alfonso Malvezzi, who filed the petition as a proposed next friend; and the Eastern District of New York, which must address the case after transfer.
What happened
In Malvezzi v. Warden, James Malvezzi sought release through a petition filed by Alfonso Malvezzi as his “next friend,” meaning someone asking to act for another person. The petition said James faced criminal charges in Queens County, but it did not establish where he was being held.
The Southern District of New York explained that a release petition generally belongs in the district overseeing the person’s custodian, usually where the person is confined. Because James’s detention location was unclear, the court relied on the Queens County charges and Alfonso’s stated intention to file in the Eastern District of New York.
Judge Swain ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York and closed the Southern District case. The receiving court must decide whether Alfonso may proceed for James and whether James may proceed without paying fees; the court also denied a certificate of appealability and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Malvezzi v. Warden · No. 1:25-cv-06850
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
James Malvezzi filed a self-represented petition asking for release from custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Alfonso Malvezzi filed it on James’s behalf as a proposed “next friend.” The opinion states that Alfonso did not describe his relationship to James, although he appeared to be related. Alfonso also did not explain in the petition where James was detained.
The petition stated that James faced criminal charges in the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. Alfonso wrote that venue belonged in the Eastern District of New York because a possible respondent—identified in the petition as a warden, sheriff, or Department of Correction commissioner—might be located at Kings County Jail in Brooklyn, or in the Queens area.
Court’s reasoning
For a petition challenging physical confinement under § 2241, jurisdiction generally belongs in the district that has authority over the person’s custodian. The court noted that it was unclear where James was detained. Because the petition concerned charges in Queens County and Alfonso indicated that he intended to file in the Eastern District of New York, the court found transfer appropriate in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The court did not decide whether Alfonso had standing to act as James’s next friend. It explained that a proposed next friend generally must show why the person seeking relief cannot appear personally and must show dedication to that person’s interests, along with a significant relationship when required. The court left that issue for the Eastern District of New York.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and stated that the transfer would occur immediately. It closed the Southern District of New York case. The court left to the transferee court the decision whether James could proceed without paying fees; the opinion states that no fee-waiver application had been submitted and that the filing fee had not been paid.
The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.