Jones v. Caputo

Background

Rafael Arden Jones, who was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging ongoing criminal proceedings in Bronx County Criminal Court. The proceedings involved charges of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal mischief in the third degree. Jones pleaded not guilty, according to the petition.

Jones alleged that a state judge denied his request to sign a subpoena for allegedly exculpatory evidence, allowed prosecutors to place his criminal history in court records, and permitted other violations of his rights. He also challenged the handling of his defense counsel, the adjournment of a hearing concerning the legality of evidence, and what he described as corruption in the state court proceedings. His filing included a separate document asking for an order compelling the state court to decide eight motions.

The court noted that Jones had previously filed a Section 2254 petition concerning the same pending criminal proceedings and that the court had dismissed that earlier petition because no state-court judgment had been entered. Jones had also filed a Section 2241 petition challenging the same criminal charges, and that case remained pending in the court when he filed this petition.

Section 2254 petition

Section 2254 permits a federal court to review custody imposed under a state-court judgment when the custody allegedly violates federal law or the Constitution. The court concluded that Jones could not use Section 2254 because his criminal proceedings were ongoing, he had not been convicted, and no judgment had been entered. The court therefore denied the Section 2254 petition without prejudice.

The court explained that, if Jones were convicted, he could later file a new Section 2254 petition after completing one full round of available state-court appeals or post-conviction proceedings. The court also declined to treat the current petition as a petition under Section 2241, which can generally be used by a state pretrial detainee challenging custody under federal law, because Jones already had a pending Section 2241 case concerning the same proceedings. The court further cited the need to avoid prematurely disrupting an ongoing state criminal case.

Mandamus request

The court treated Jones’s additional filing as a request for a writ of mandamus, meaning an order compelling an official to perform a required duty. Federal district courts have authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel federal officers or agencies, but the court held that they have no general authority to compel state officials or state courts to act. Because Jones sought to compel the state court to decide motions in his criminal case, the court denied the mandamus application.

Disposition

The court denied Jones’s Section 2254 petition without prejudice. It denied his application under Section 1361 to compel the state court to adjudicate his pending motions. The court stated that Jones had not made the required substantial showing of a constitutional violation, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to mail Jones a copy of the order and record service on the docket.