Corley v. Nathan
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-01283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Corley v. Nathan, Judge Stanton denied Royce Corley’s custody petition without prejudice because it was filed under the wrong procedure.
Royce Corley’s § 2241 petition was denied without prejudice; the respondents were not ordered to provide the requested relief.
What happened
In Corley v. Nathan, Royce Corley, representing himself, asked the court to rule on his pending new-trial motion and sought release if no ruling came within ninety days. He also asked the court to require the Attorney General to dismiss the indictment and to return his filing fee.
The court explained that Corley’s request was not a challenge to how his sentence was being carried out, so it could not proceed under the federal custody-review law he cited. The court also noted that the Southern District of New York was not the proper location for that type of petition because Corley was then in custody in Brooklyn. Corley declined to have the filing treated as a motion challenging his conviction or sentence under a different federal law, and he asked for a transfer instead.
Judge Louis L. Stanton declined to transfer the matter and denied the petition without prejudice. The ruling did not decide whether Corley was entitled to a new trial, release, dismissal of the indictment, or return of the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Corley v. Nathan · No. 1:20-cv-01283
- Colleen McMahon
- May 18, 2020
Background
Royce Corley filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and paid a $5 filing fee. He was representing himself. He sought an order requiring a ruling on his pending motion for a new trial in his federal criminal case. He alleged that the delay was unreasonable and prejudicial, and requested immediate release if no ruling issued within ninety days. He also asked the court to require Attorney General William Pelham Barr to seek dismissal of the indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), and requested return of the filing fee.
When Corley filed the petition, he was incarcerated in a federal correctional institution in Virginia. By the time of the opinion, he was residing in a residential reentry facility in Brooklyn, New York. His motion for a new trial, filed in 2017, remained pending, as did his separate motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence.
Earlier order and Corley’s response
In an earlier order, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon denied Corley’s request for an order compelling action and directed him to explain why the filing should not be treated as a supplemental filing in his pending § 2255 case. That order stated that § 2241 was not the proper vehicle because Corley was not challenging the execution of his sentence. It also stated that venue was improper in the Southern District because he was in custody in Brooklyn.
Corley responded that he intended to proceed only under § 2241. He argued that seeking a ruling on his new-trial motion challenged the execution of his sentence. He also asked the court to transfer the matter to the Eastern District of New York rather than treat it as a § 2255 filing.
Ruling
The court held that the relief Corley sought was not properly brought under § 2241. It therefore declined to transfer the matter to the Eastern District of New York. Because Corley refused to have the petition recharacterized as a § 2255 filing and added to his pending § 2255 case, Judge Louis L. Stanton denied the petition without prejudice.
The order did not reach the merits of Corley’s request for a new trial, release, dismissal of the indictment, or return of the filing fee. The court’s conclusion states: “The petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is denied without prejudice.”
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.