Hernandez v. Chief

Background

Jesse Hernandez, who was being held at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging ongoing criminal proceedings in Bronx County, New York. The proceedings arose from his September 16, 2024 arrest. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Hernandez asserted two overlapping grounds. He argued that the prosecution violated New York Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30(1), which concerns the time by which the prosecution must be ready for trial. He also cited New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 245.20, 245.50(3), 30.30(4), 210.20, and 210.45. He claimed that the prosecution lacked a complaining victim, witnesses, and other evidence, and sought release before trial or dismissal of the charges without prejudice. He also stated, without specific supporting facts, that his claims had been presented and exhausted.

Section 2254 ruling

The court denied the Section 2254 petition because that statute applies to a person held under a state-court judgment of conviction. Hernandez had not been convicted, so he could not use Section 2254 to challenge his ongoing criminal proceedings. The opinion states that, if he is later convicted, he may seek Section 2254 relief after exhausting state remedies.

Section 2241 ruling

The court declined to treat Hernandez’s filing as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which can sometimes be used by a person detained before trial to challenge detention that violates federal law. The court found that Hernandez had not shown that he exhausted available state-court remedies. His allegation that a trial court denied an omnibus motion, and his general statement that he had exhausted his claims, did not show that he appealed through the state courts’ established review process.

The court also explained that, even assuming exhaustion, Hernandez identified state-law claims, including claims under New York’s speedy-trial statute. The court stated that a state-law speedy-trial claim under Section 30.30 is not the same as a federal constitutional speedy-trial claim and cannot support federal habeas relief. Hernandez did not allege that he was detained in violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty.

Disposition

The court denied the Section 2254 petition and declined to construe the submission as a Section 2241 petition. It granted Hernandez 60 days to file a Section 2241 petition alleging, if applicable, detention that violates federal law and showing exhaustion of his federal claims in state court. The opinion states that, if he does not file such a petition, the court will enter judgment denying the Section 2254 petition without prejudice.

The court determined that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment is entered.