Jones v. Caputo

Background

Rafael Arden Jones filed this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 while criminal proceedings were pending in Bronx County Criminal Court. A petition under Section 2254 generally challenges a state-court conviction or custody following a conviction. On March 3, 2022, the court dismissed the petition without prejudice because Jones did not have a judgment of conviction. The court also declined to treat the filing as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because Jones already had another Section 2241 petition pending.

After the case was closed, Jones filed multiple letters, subpoena requests, and other applications. The court treated his submissions as motions under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or other extraordinary circumstances.

The Court’s Analysis

Jones argued, among other things, that the Correction Officers Benevolent Association was a racketeering enterprise working with public defenders to kidnap male detainees, that his indictment violated the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws, and that he was entitled to immunity from arrest. He also sought an order of protection and suppression of evidence based on alleged conduct by another detainee at the Anna M. Kross Center. Because Jones was no longer housed there, the court said his requests for injunctive relief appeared to be moot. The court also explained that any civil action would have to be filed separately because this docket was a closed Section 2254 proceeding rather than a civil-rights action.

Jones’s other filings sought emergency relief, a venue change, discovery, a court order requiring action by another person or agency, release from custody, civil-rights relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, relief against federal actors under Bivens, and permission to add defendants. The court concluded that, even when read liberally, the submissions did not show that any of the first five grounds listed in Rule 60(b) applied. It also found that Jones had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6), the rule’s separate provision for other reasons justifying relief.

Disposition

The court denied Jones’s requests for subpoenas because the matter was closed. It denied his letter requests and motions for reconsideration. The court stated that this action remained closed and that any appropriate Section 2241 petition, Section 1983 civil-rights action against state actors, or Bivens action against federal actors would have to be brought in a separate proceeding. The clerk was directed to accept only filings in this action directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.