Sandy v. Barometre
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-03099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sandy v. Barometre, Judge Roman dismissed Kester Sandy’s habeas petition without prejudice because he named the wrong respondent and court.
The order affected Kester Sandy’s challenge to his 2004 federal conviction and the named respondent, Delta Barometre, the superintendent of Otisville Correctional Facility. The petition was dismissed without prejudice because the court found that Sandy named the wrong respondent and filed in the wrong court; the court did not decide the conviction challenge.
What happened
In Kester Sandy v. Delta Barometre, Sandy challenged his 2004 federal firearm conviction under a Supreme Court decision about what the government must prove in felon-in-possession cases. He had completed the prison term but had not yet served the conviction’s three-year supervised-release term because he was in state custody for an unrelated conviction.
Sandy named the superintendent of the correctional facility where he was held. The court said that person was not the proper respondent because Sandy was challenging his future federal supervised release, which would be controlled by federal probation officials or the supervising probation officer. The court also said the case was filed in a court that did not have authority over the proper respondent.
Judge Nelson S. Roman dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action and mail Sandy a copy of the order. The court did not decide whether Sandy’s challenge to his conviction was valid.
The detailed version
- Sandy v. Barometre · No. 7:21-cv-03099
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 19, 2022
Background
Kester Sandy filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for challenging certain forms of custody. He challenged the validity of his 2004 conviction in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for possessing a firearm as a person previously convicted of a felony. Sandy relied on Rehaif v. United States, which clarified that the government must prove that a defendant knew he possessed a firearm and knew he was a felon when he possessed it. Sandy argued that, although he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, he did not know at the time of the alleged crime that he had been convicted.
Sandy had already completed the 78-month prison term imposed for the 2004 conviction. He had not yet served the related three-year term of supervised release because he was in state custody serving a prison term for an unrelated state conviction at Otisville Correctional Facility.
Respondent and jurisdiction
The court explained that the proper respondent in a habeas case is generally the person or entity exercising legal control over the custody being challenged. Because Sandy challenged his future federal supervised release rather than his New York state custody, the superintendent of Otisville was not the proper respondent. The court identified U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services or the federal probation officer who would supervise Sandy as the proper respondent.
The court also concluded that Sandy filed the case in a court that did not have jurisdiction over the proper respondent. Thus, the petition failed both to name the correct respondent and to be filed in the court with authority over that respondent.
Ruling
The court dismissed Sandy’s § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action, mail Sandy a copy of the order at his address on the court’s electronic docket, and record service. Judge Nelson S. Roman did not reach the merits of Sandy’s challenge under Rehaif or decide whether the 2004 conviction was valid.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.