Sokolov v. Mayorkas
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04554
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sokolov v. Mayorkas, Judge Swain denied reconsideration, appointed counsel, and appeal fee-waiver status because Sokolov remained in state custody.
Alexey Sokolov’s requests for reconsideration, appointed counsel, and permission to appeal without paying court fees were denied.
What happened
In Sokolov v. Mayorkas, Alexey Sokolov challenged his future immigration custody while he remained in state custody serving a New York sentence. The court had previously dismissed his petition because the 90-day immigration removal period had not begun.
Sokolov asked the court to reconsider that dismissal, arguing that it had overlooked a relevant state appellate decision. The court found that decision did not apply because the person in that earlier case had already been released from state custody into immigration custody, while Sokolov remained in state custody.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Sokolov’s reconsideration motion and his request for appointed counsel. Judge Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Sokolov permission to proceed without paying court fees on appeal.
The detailed version
- Sokolov v. Mayorkas · No. 1:22-cv-04554
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Alexey Sokolov filed this action without a lawyer while he was in state custody at Fishkill Correctional Facility. He had been ordered removed from the United States in 2015 based on a New York State conviction. The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision had granted him conditional parole for deportation effective March 27, 2022, but records showed that he remained in state custody, serving a six-to-twenty-year sentence.
Sokolov’s petition relied on 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a statute that allows a person to challenge certain custody. He argued that the 90-day period for removing him under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) had expired, making his current custody illegal. In the earlier order, the court dismissed the petition because Sokolov was not in immigration custody, so the 90-day removal period had not begun.
Motion for Reconsideration
Sokolov moved under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment. To obtain that relief, he had to show that the court had overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented.
Sokolov relied on a New York Appellate Division decision involving a person whose state habeas challenge became moot after release from state custody into immigration custody. The court explained that those circumstances were different from Sokolov’s situation because Sokolov remained in state custody while serving his criminal sentence.
The court concluded that it had not overlooked any controlling legal decision or factual matter. It therefore denied Sokolov’s motion for reconsideration.
Other Requests and Disposition
The court denied both Sokolov’s motion for reconsideration and his application for appointment of counsel. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, the court denied Sokolov permission to proceed without paying court fees for an appeal.
This order is classified as a procedural order because it denied reconsideration of an earlier dismissal without deciding the underlying immigration-custody question on its merits.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.