Milchamot v. Warden of O.B.C.C.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-09892
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yehudah Milchamot v. Warden of O.B.C.C., Judge Swain ordered payment or an IFP application before processing the habeas petition.
Yehudah Milchamot, who must either pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed IFP application within 30 days to avoid dismissal of the action.
What happened
In Yehudah Milchamot v. Warden of O.B.C.C., Yehudah Milchamot asked the Southern District of New York to review a detention-related claim through a habeas petition. The opinion identifies Milchamot as representing himself.
Because the petition was submitted without the required filing fee or an application to proceed without paying the fee, the court gave Milchamot 30 days to pay $5 or submit a signed application. No response from the Warden was required at that time.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered these next steps and said the case would be processed if Milchamot complied. If he did not comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Milchamot v. Warden of O.B.C.C. · No. 1:25-cv-09892
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
Yehudah Milchamot, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A habeas petition asks a federal court to address allegedly unlawful custody or detention. The petition was submitted without the $5 filing fee and without a signed application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning to proceed without prepaying court fees.
Order
The court directed Milchamot, within 30 days of the order, to do one of two things: pay the $5 filing fee or complete and submit the attached IFP application, identifying docket number 25-CV-9892 (LTS). If the court grants the IFP application, Milchamot may proceed without prepayment of fees. The order states that no answer from the respondent was required at that time.
Disposition
The court ordered that the case proceed through the Clerk’s Office if Milchamot complied with the payment or application requirement. It stated that the action would be dismissed if he failed to comply within the allowed time. The court did not decide the habeas petition’s underlying claims. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.