Feliz v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:18-cv-03680
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Feliz v. City of New York, Judge McMahon denied Feliz’s pretrial habeas petition without prejudice for failure to show exhaustion of state remedies.
The ruling affected Alexander Feliz’s federal challenge to his detention and pending indictment. The case was dismissed without prejudice, so the opinion stated that he could file a new habeas petition challenging his current custody.
What happened
Feliz v. City of New York involved Alexander Feliz’s petition challenging the validity of a pending indictment while he was detained before trial at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center. He filed the petition without a lawyer under a federal law allowing people in custody to challenge unlawful detention.
The court had earlier dismissed the case without prejudice because Feliz did not timely pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it. After he paid the fee one week later, the court set aside that earlier dismissal and considered the petition. The court found that Feliz had not alleged that he first used available state-court remedies.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied habeas relief and dismissed the action without prejudice because Feliz had not shown exhaustion, and the court understood that he had been released from the detention challenged in the petition. The court said he could file a new petition to challenge his current custody, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without paying the fee.
The detailed version
- Feliz v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-03680
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
Alexander Feliz filed the case without a lawyer as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for a person in custody to challenge detention that allegedly violates federal law or the Constitution. He challenged the validity of a pending indictment and was then detained before trial at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center.
On April 26, 2018, the court ordered Feliz to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it. Because he did not comply within 30 days, the court dismissed the action without prejudice on June 6, 2018. Feliz paid the filing fee one week later. Because of his status as a person without a lawyer and his late payment, the court vacated the June 6 order and judgment.
Issue and reasoning
The court explained that a state detainee seeking relief under Section 2241 must first exhaust available state-court remedies. Exhaustion means using the available state procedures before asking a federal court to intervene. Feliz did not allege facts showing that he had exhausted those remedies.
The court ordinarily would have allowed Feliz to amend his petition to address exhaustion. But the court stated that it appeared Feliz had been released from Kirby after filing the petition. A court record cited in a footnote indicated that he was then in custody at the George R. Vierno Center based on a later arrest. The court therefore denied relief on the petition concerning the earlier custody and dismissed the action without prejudice. It stated that Feliz could file a new habeas petition if he wanted to challenge his current custody.
Disposition
The court vacated its June 6, 2018 order and judgment. Judge Colleen McMahon denied Feliz’s habeas corpus relief and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.