Harris v. Walker
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06563
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harris v. Walker, Judge Swain denied Harris’s detention challenge without prejudice because he had not exhausted state remedies.
William Harris’s federal challenge to his pretrial detention was denied without prejudice; the opinion does not state whether he may pursue further state-court proceedings.
What happened
William Harris challenged the constitutionality of his pretrial detention in Harris v. Walker. The court told him it would treat his filing as a petition asking a federal court to review his detention.
The court gave Harris time either to withdraw the filing or submit an amended petition showing that he had fully pursued his state-court remedies. Harris did neither.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the petition without prejudice because Harris had not exhausted his state remedies. She also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Walker · No. 1:22-cv-06563
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 20, 2023
Background
William Harris filed an application challenging the constitutionality of his pretrial detention. By an order dated October 26, 2022, the court notified him that it would recharacterize the application as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A habeas petition is a request for judicial review of a person’s detention.
The court told Harris that he could withdraw the petition within 30 days if he did not want to proceed under Section 2241. If he continued, the court required him to file an amended petition within 60 days showing that he had fully exhausted his state-court remedies. The court warned that failing to comply would result in denial of the petition.
Ruling
Harris did not file an amended petition or state that he wanted to withdraw the petition. The court therefore denied the Section 2241 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. “Without prejudice” means the order does not itself bar a later filing.
The court also stated that the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment, and all other pending matters were terminated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.