Cameron v. Hellett
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-01135
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cameron v. Hellett, Judge McMahon transferred the successive habeas petition to the appeals court because prior authorization was required.
Gilbert Cameron's federal challenge to his 2008 state conviction was transferred to the Second Circuit, and the district-court case was closed. The respondents were Warden Michelle Hellett, the New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision, and the Bronx Supreme Courts.
What happened
In Cameron v. Hellett, Gilbert Cameron, representing himself, challenged his 2008 New York state conviction in a petition seeking federal review. He was detained for a parole violation at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island.
The court found that Cameron had previously filed a petition challenging the same conviction and that the earlier petition had been decided on its merits. The new petition was therefore a second or successive petition, which required permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit before proceeding in the district court.
Judge Colleen McMahon transferred the petition to the Second Circuit in the interest of justice and closed the district-court case. She also ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Cameron v. Hellett · No. 1:20-cv-01135
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 11, 2020
Background
Gilbert Cameron, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2008 conviction in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. The opinion states that he was detained for a parole violation at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. The respondents were Warden Michelle Hellett, the New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision, and the Bronx Supreme Courts.
Why the Court Transferred the Petition
The district court's records showed that Cameron had filed a previous application under § 2254 challenging the same conviction in a prior related proceeding, No. 13-CV-5872 (S.D.N.Y.). That application had been decided on its merits. The court therefore treated the new application as a second or successive petition.
Federal law requires a person to obtain authorization from the appropriate court of appeals before filing a second or successive § 2254 petition in the district court. The opinion states that Cameron would need to move in the Second Circuit for permission to pursue the application. It also describes the circumstances that could support such permission: reliance on a new, retroactive constitutional rule previously unavailable, or newly discovered facts that could establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the person guilty absent constitutional error.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon transferred the petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and closed the district-court case. The order states that, if the Court of Appeals authorizes Cameron to proceed, he may move to reopen the case under the same civil docket number.
The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Cameron had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. The district court did not decide the merits of Cameron's challenge to his conviction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.