Cohen v. United States of America
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-10833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cohen v. United States, Judge Koeltl dismissed one related habeas case without prejudice and ordered an answer in the other.
Michael D. Cohen’s first case was closed, while his second sentence-credit challenge remained pending for the government’s response; the opinion did not decide whether he was entitled to credit.
What happened
In Cohen v. United States, Michael D. Cohen, who was representing himself, challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to grant him sentence credit. He filed two related cases based on that refusal while serving his sentences in home confinement.
The court ruled that a petition under a federal law allowing challenges to custody and sentence calculations was the proper way to seek the requested relief. It dismissed Cohen’s first case, No. 1:20-CV-10807, without prejudice to the relief sought in his second case, No. 1:20-CV-10833.
Judge John G. Koeltl ordered the government’s attorney to answer or file another response to the second case within 60 days. Cohen could reply within 30 days after receiving that response; the court also denied him permission to amend the first case and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Cohen v. United States of America · No. 1:20-cv-10833
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 14, 2021
Background
Michael D. Cohen appeared without a lawyer and was serving federal sentences in home confinement. He challenged the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to grant him sentence credit in two cases filed on the same date.
In No. 1:20-CV-10807, Cohen sought a court order compelling government action and unspecified custody-related relief. In No. 1:20-CV-10833, he specifically sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal statute used to challenge certain custody or sentence-calculation decisions. Both cases challenged the same refusal to grant sentence credit.
Court’s analysis
The court held that a petition under § 2241 was the proper vehicle for the relief Cohen sought in both actions. Because the second case specifically pursued § 2241 relief, the court dismissed the first case without prejudice to the relief Cohen sought in the second case.
The court also stated that amending the first case would be futile and denied Cohen leave to file an amended complaint in that case. The opinion did not decide whether Cohen was entitled to the requested sentence credit.
Rulings and next steps
Judge John G. Koeltl dismissed Cohen v. United States, No. 1:20-CV-10807, without prejudice to the relief sought in No. 1:20-CV-10833, and directed the clerk to close the first case. For the second case, the court ordered the U.S. Attorney’s Office to file an answer or other pleading within 60 days. Cohen could file reply papers within 30 days after being served with that response.
The court further ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue for the first case because the pleading did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.