Jones v. Joseph Caputo
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-02794
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jones v. Caputo, Judge Aaron denied discovery and other motions in Jones’s pending habeas case, while denying some requests without prejudice and one as moot.
Rafael A. Jones, who filed the motions, and Joseph A. Caputo, the respondent in Jones’s pending habeas proceeding.
What happened
Rafael A. Jones, who is representing himself, filed several motions in his pending challenge to custody against Joseph A. Caputo. The motions sought discovery, release, permission to skip the exhaustion requirement, summary judgment, appointed counsel, and other relief concerning property and federal facilities.
The court denied Jones’s three motions to compel discovery because habeas petitioners do not ordinarily receive discovery and the record did not show good cause. It denied without prejudice his requests for release, to waive exhaustion, and for summary judgment because those requests duplicated the main relief sought in his pending habeas petition. It denied as moot his request for a lawyer because a separate order appointed counsel, and denied two other motions because they appeared related to state-court proceedings and lacked a legal basis in this court.
Stewart D. Aaron, the United States magistrate judge who issued the order, resolved these motions without deciding the underlying habeas petition. The order was dated December 2, 2022.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Joseph Caputo · No. 1:22-cv-02794
- John Cronan
- Dec. 2, 2022
Background
Rafael A. Jones, proceeding without a lawyer, filed multiple motions in his pending petition challenging his custody. The order addressed motions to compel discovery, for release from custody, to waive the requirement to exhaust available remedies, for summary judgment, for appointment of counsel, for the return of property allegedly seized without a warrant, and concerning repair, reconstruction, restoration, and replacement of federal facilities.
Rulings
The court denied Jones’s motions to compel discovery, identified as ECF Nos. 4, 8, and 16. The court explained that a habeas petitioner is not ordinarily entitled to discovery. Discovery is allowed only when the court finds good cause, and the court found no good cause on the record before it.
The court denied without prejudice Jones’s motion for release from custody, motion to waive the exhaustion requirement, and motion for summary judgment, identified as ECF Nos. 5, 48, and 56. The court stated that these motions sought the ultimate relief requested in the pending habeas proceeding and duplicated the pending habeas petition.
The court denied as moot Jones’s motion for appointment of counsel under the Ethics in Government Act, identified as ECF No. 28, because the court was appointing counsel in a separate order.
The court denied Jones’s motions identified as ECF Nos. 41 and 70. The court said those motions appeared to relate to pending state-court proceedings and were not properly brought in this court. It also stated that, in any event, there was no legal basis to grant them.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved the listed motions but did not decide the merits of Jones’s pending habeas petition. It was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge, and entered on December 2, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.