Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 9, 2020

Williams v. Grayson

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-11841
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Williams v. Grayson, Chief Judge McMahon denied Williams’s duplicate detention petition without prejudice.

Who this affects

Jamar Williams’s duplicate detention petition was denied without prejudice; his separate pending application in No. 19-CV-11664 (CM) was not decided by this order.

What happened

In Williams v. Grayson, Jamar Williams, who was incarcerated at Rikers Island and represented himself, filed a petition asking the federal court to review the constitutionality of his detention. The opinion says he had already filed an identical petition in another pending case.

The court denied this petition without prejudice to Williams’s pending application in case number 19-CV-11664 (CM), explaining that litigating the duplicate petition would serve no useful purpose. The court did not decide the underlying constitutional challenge in this case.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The court directed the clerk to assign the matter to the judge’s docket, mail Williams a copy of the order, and record service.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Williams v. Grayson · No. 1:19-cv-11841
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Jan. 9, 2020

Background

Jamar Williams, who was incarcerated at Rikers Island, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a statute allowing a person to challenge certain forms of detention in federal court. Williams challenged the constitutionality of his detention and proceeded without a lawyer. The court stated that Williams had previously filed an identical petition in a pending case, No. 19-CV-11664 (CM).

Ruling

The court denied the petition without prejudice to Williams’s pending application in No. 19-CV-11664 (CM). It reasoned that because the two petitions raised the same claims, litigating this duplicate petition would serve no useful purpose. The court therefore did not reach the merits of the constitutional challenge in this case.

Appeal-related rulings and case administration

The court stated that the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for the appeal. The clerk was directed to assign the matter to Judge Colleen McMahon’s docket, mail Williams a copy of the order, and note service on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.