Jones v. Carter
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-09571
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Jones v. Carter, Chief Judge Swain denied leave to amend, reconsideration, and an appeal-time extension.
Rafael A. Jones’s requests for federal relief from his pending state criminal proceedings were denied; the court also limited further filings in the closed case.
What happened
In Jones v. Carter, Rafael A. Jones, who was incarcerated and representing himself, sought federal relief from his ongoing state criminal proceedings. The court had previously denied his petition without prejudice because those proceedings were still pending and he had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for federal intervention.
The court treated Jones’s amended petition as a request for permission to amend and denied it. It treated his other written requests as a request to undo the earlier judgment and denied that request. The court also denied his request for more time to appeal as unnecessary because his notice of appeal was timely.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain said the court would not consider Jones’s telephone messages or accept further filings in the closed case, except filings directed to the federal appeals court. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Carter · No. 1:21-cv-09571
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 2, 2022
Background
Rafael A. Jones, who was incarcerated on Rikers Island and representing himself, filed a petition under Section 2254, a federal law allowing a state prisoner to challenge custody, concerning his ongoing proceedings in Bronx County Criminal Court. On January 10, 2022, the court denied that petition under the rule requiring federal courts generally not to interfere with pending state criminal proceedings. The denial was without prejudice to filing another Section 2254 petition if Jones were convicted. The court also said he would first have to use all available state-court remedies.
After that judgment, Jones filed five submissions: an amended petition, an amicus filing concerning his criminal case, a letter alleging criminal conduct by a correction officer, a motion seeking a trial within 10 days, dismissal of the state indictment, and release from custody, and a motion seeking discovery in his criminal case. He also left voicemails concerning his detention and prosecution.
Amended Petition
The court treated the amended petition as a request for permission to amend the petition and denied leave to amend. It gave the same reason as for the original denial: Jones had not alleged special circumstances showing bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury in the ongoing state prosecution. The court also noted that the state proceedings involved important state interests and would give Jones an opportunity to present constitutional objections.
To the extent Jones challenged the conditions of his confinement, the court said those allegations had to be brought in a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than in the Section 2254 petition.
Requests to Undo the Judgment
The court treated Jones’s other submissions as a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a party to seek relief from a judgment or order. The court denied that motion because Jones challenged his ongoing state-court proceedings rather than the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding. The court also stated that, to the extent the submissions could be treated as motions under Rule 59(e) or Local Civil Rule 6.3, those motions were denied because Jones did not show that the court had overlooked controlling law or relevant facts.
Appeal-Time Request and Other Directions
The court denied Jones’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal as unnecessary. It explained that Jones had filed his notice of appeal within the required 30-day period. The court terminated all other pending matters and directed the Clerk not to accept further submissions in the closed case, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It also said that voicemails and other telephone communications could not be considered and directed Jones not to call the court about the matter.
The court ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Jones had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It further certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Disposition
The court denied leave to amend, denied the motion for reconsideration, and denied the motion for an extension of time to appeal as unnecessary. All other pending matters were terminated.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.