Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06229
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department, Judge Swain dismissed the case without prejudice after Sabino did not respond to an order about his potential habeas petition.
Saul Sabino, whose potential federal detention challenge was dismissed without prejudice after he did not respond to the court’s order; the opinion also addressed his ability to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department, Saul Sabino had removed a pending state criminal proceeding to federal court, where it was remanded to state court. His filing referred to a federal law allowing challenges to detention and appeared to raise double-jeopardy and speedy-trial claims. The court opened this separate case after determining that he might intend to seek habeas relief, a court order concerning unlawful detention.
The court told Sabino that it would treat his filing as a petition challenging his detention under federal law unless he withdrew it. It gave him 30 days to respond or request more time. The court had also explained that a state pretrial detainee generally must first use available state-court remedies before seeking this type of federal relief.
Judge Swain dismissed Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department without prejudice because Sabino did not respond before the deadline. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department · No. 1:22-cv-06229
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 9, 2022
Background
Saul Sabino was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. He had removed a pending state criminal proceeding, People v. Sabino, Case No. 01504-2020, to this court. That matter was opened under a separate docket number and then sent back to state court.
In his notice of removal, Sabino referred to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and appeared to assert violations of the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same offense and the right to a speedy trial. The court determined that he might instead intend to bring a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2241. Habeas corpus is a procedure for challenging unlawful detention. The court therefore opened this separate action as a possible Section 2241 petition.
Court’s Order and Nonresponse
Before treating a filing made under another statute as a Section 2241 petition, the court was required to notify Sabino and give him an opportunity to withdraw the filing. The court ordered him to state in writing within 30 days whether he wanted to withdraw his application rather than have it treated as a Section 2241 petition. The court said it would dismiss the action if he did not respond or request an extension.
Sabino did not respond, and the response period expired. The opinion also notes that a state pretrial detainee must first exhaust available state-court remedies before seeking federal habeas relief under Section 2241.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to respond to the court’s order. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar a later filing, although the opinion did not decide the merits of Sabino’s double-jeopardy, speedy-trial, or detention claims.
The court further ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Sabino had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.