Flowers v. United States
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-09367
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Flowers v. United States, Chief Judge McMahon denied Flowers’s duplicate detention petition without prejudice and denied fee-free appeal status.
Joe N. Flowers Jr.; the order denies his duplicative federal detention petition without prejudice and limits his ability to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Flowers v. United States, Joe N. Flowers Jr., who was incarcerated and represented himself, filed a petition challenging his detention under federal law. He had already filed an earlier petition raising the same claims, and that earlier petition was decided on its merits.
The court concluded that the new petition duplicated the earlier one and denied it without prejudice. The petition had been transferred to the Southern District of New York from the Western District of New York.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied Flowers permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Flowers v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-09367
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 17, 2020
Background
Joe N. Flowers Jr. appeared without a lawyer and was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York. He filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure used to challenge certain aspects of a person’s detention.
Flowers had previously submitted another § 2241 petition on September 18, 2019. That earlier proceeding was decided on the merits by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on September 21, 2020. While that earlier proceeding was still pending, Flowers submitted the present petition to prison officials for mailing to the federal court in the Western District of New York. That court transferred the petition to the Southern District of New York on November 2, 2020.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that the present petition raised the same claims that had already been raised and adjudicated in the earlier proceeding. It stated that no useful purpose would be served by litigating the duplicative petition. Relying on the court’s authority to manage its docket, including staying or dismissing a suit that duplicates another federal suit, the court denied the petition without prejudice as duplicative.
Ruling and appeal provisions
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon denied the petition without prejudice. The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. In addition, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to mail Flowers a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.