Sabino v. Warden of GRVC

Background

Saul Sabino, who was representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention while state criminal proceedings were pending in Queens County Supreme Court. The opinion states that he was held in the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island. In an earlier order, the court denied his original petition and dismissed the action without prejudice because he had not shown that he exhausted available state-court remedies. The court gave him 30 days to file an amended petition showing why an exception to the exhaustion requirement should apply.

Sabino filed a document titled “Replead Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,” which the court treated as his amended petition.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a state pretrial detainee may use a federal detention challenge to claim that custody violates the Constitution or federal law. But the court stated that Sabino had to use available state-court remedies first unless he showed either cause for failing to do so and resulting prejudice, or that refusing to consider his claims would cause a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The court also discussed the actual-innocence standard, which requires factual innocence and a showing that, in light of new evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted the person.

Sabino did not identify facts showing that either exception applied. He argued that exhaustion would cause irreparable injury because his claims showed his innocence. He referred to conflicting photo arrays, a detective’s later statement that he could not make a positive identification, and what he described as an unfair state-court proceeding. He also challenged the state court’s bail decision, arguing that it did not consider his financial circumstances or those of his father, who had been diagnosed with cancer.

The court concluded that Sabino could raise these arguments in the state trial court and, if unsuccessful, on appeal in the New York courts. Because he did not show cause and prejudice or actual innocence sufficient to excuse exhaustion, the court did not reach the underlying merits of his detention, identification, or bail claims.

Disposition

The court denied Sabino’s amended petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and dismissed the action without prejudice and without further leave to replead. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Sabino had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action.