Nazer v. Warden at Riker's Island
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03798
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
Izzat Nazar v. Warden: Chief Judge Swain ordered Nazar to amend his pretrial-detention petition without deciding whether his detention was unlawful.
Izzat Nazar, a self-represented pretrial detainee, must identify his federal detention claims and explain his state-court exhaustion efforts in an amended petition; the Warden was not required to answer at this stage.
What happened
In Izzat Nazar v. Warden, Izzat Nazar, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center on Rikers Island, challenged his detention before trial on New York robbery charges. He sought immediate release, arguing that his bail and later remand to custody were unlawful.
The court said it was unclear which federal or constitutional grounds Nazar was raising and whether he had first presented those grounds through the available New York court appeals. The court therefore did not decide whether his detention violated federal law.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Nazar 60 days to file an amended petition identifying his federal claims and explaining his efforts to exhaust them in state court. The court said the petition would be denied without prejudice if he failed to comply without good cause, and no order requiring the respondent to answer would issue at that time.
The detailed version
- Nazer v. Warden at Riker's Island · No. 1:23-cv-03798
- Laura Swain
- June 20, 2023
Background
Izzat Nazar filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure that can allow a person in custody to challenge the legality of detention before trial. He was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center on Rikers Island in connection with pending robbery charges in New York County Supreme Court.
According to the petition, the charges arose from an alleged theft of a pair of socks from a T.J. Maxx store. Nazar alleged that his initial bail was unlawful under New York's Bail Reform Act, although he was released on bail. While he was released, his defense lawyer did not schedule a mental-health examination under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 730.
Nazar stated that he was returned to custody on August 25, 2022. One reason given for the remand was to allow the mental-health examination, which Nazar said had since been completed and found him fit to proceed. Another reason was that he had missed a court appearance and was found to have absconded. Nazar attributed the missed appearance to incorrect information from a clerk about the date of the appearance and argued that his return to custody was unlawful. He sought immediate release.
Exhaustion and Deficiencies in the Petition
The court explained that a pretrial detainee may use Section 2241 to seek release when detention violates the Constitution or federal law. Before seeking that federal relief, however, the detainee generally must exhaust available state-court remedies by fairly presenting the claims through one complete round of the state's established appellate review process.
The court found two problems. First, it was unclear what challenge to Nazar's detention was based on federal law or the United States Constitution. Second, the petition did not show whether Nazar had raised his federal claims in state court or fully exhausted them by appealing to the highest available state court. The court noted that the federal petition could be premature if Nazar was still pursuing those constitutional grounds in state court.
Order
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Nazar leave to file an amended Section 2241 petition within 60 days. The amended petition must identify the federal grounds for relief and describe the steps Nazar took to exhaust those grounds in his ongoing state criminal proceedings. If he could not exhaust them in state court, he had to explain why with supporting facts.
The court stated that an amended petition would completely replace the original petition. It directed Nazar to submit the filing to the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Petition,” and use the same docket number. If the amended petition was proper, the case would be reviewed and reassigned to a district judge under the Clerk's Office procedures.
The court did not issue an order requiring the respondent to answer. It stated that, if Nazar failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the petition would be denied without prejudice. The court also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.