Carter v. Bronx County Supreme Commissioner
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03107
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In C. Carter; L. Maginley v. Bronx County Supreme Commissioner, Judge Swain dismissed the case without prejudice for nonexhaustion and Younger abstention.
The petitioner’s federal petition was denied and the action was dismissed without prejudice. The judgment identifies C. Carter and L. Maginley as respondents and names the Bronx County Supreme Commissioner.
What happened
C. Carter; L. Maginley v. Bronx County Supreme Commissioner concerned a petition asking the federal court to provide relief under a federal detention-review law. The judgment does not explain the underlying dispute.
The court denied the petitioner’s application because the petitioner had not shown that available state-court remedies had been exhausted and because of the Younger abstention doctrine, which limits federal interference with certain state proceedings.
Judge Laura Swain’s court dismissed the action without prejudice. The court declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Carter v. Bronx County Supreme Commissioner · No. 1:25-cv-03107
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
The judgment concerns the petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to seek federal review of certain detention or custody matters. The judgment states that the court’s reasons were provided in an Order dated September 2, 2025, but that Order is not included in the supplied text. The judgment does not describe the underlying state-court matter or the specific relief sought.
Court’s ruling
The court denied the petitioner’s application. It dismissed the action without prejudice for two stated reasons: the petitioner failed to show that available state-court remedies had been exhausted, and the court applied the Younger abstention doctrine, which concerns limits on federal-court intervention in certain state proceedings.
The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because the petitioner had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment entered dismissal of the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.