Jones v. McCormack
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-08296
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Jones v. McCormac, Judge Swain denied Rafael Arden Jones’s habeas petition because federal intervention in his pending state case was improper.
Rafael Arden Jones was denied federal habeas relief and was ordered to explain why a future-filing restriction should not be imposed. The Acting Warden of OBCC Ned McCormac was the named respondent. The order also affects any future habeas petitions Jones may file about the same ongoing criminal proceedings.
What happened
Jones v. McCormac concerns Rafael Arden Jones’s challenge to his arrest, detention, and ongoing criminal proceedings in Bronx Supreme Criminal Court. Jones, who was detained on Rikers Island and representing himself, filed a petition asking for a federal order involving the state case, including filming a Wade hearing or dismissing the case.
The court denied the petition because federal courts generally may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent serious and immediate harm, bad faith, or harassment. The court found that Jones had not shown those circumstances and had not first pursued available remedies in the state courts. It also denied him permission to amend the petition.
The court gave Jones 30 days to explain why he should not be barred from filing future habeas petitions about these proceedings without first obtaining permission. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Jones v. McCormack · No. 1:23-cv-08296
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
Rafael Arden Jones, who was detained on Rikers Island and proceeded without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his arrest and detention and his ongoing criminal proceedings in Bronx Supreme Criminal Court. The proceedings arose from a September 14, 2021 arrest. The opinion states that Jones was charged with criminal mischief in the third degree and attempted murder in the second degree.
Jones alleged a retaliatory motive for the prosecution and requested a federal order requiring a Wade hearing to be filmed or ordering dismissal of the case. He also stated, “I never used a Firearm to Commit A Crime!” The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Why the Court Denied the Petition
The court applied the Younger abstention doctrine, which generally prevents a federal court from interfering with an ongoing state criminal case. Intervention may be allowed in special circumstances involving bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury. The court found that Jones had not alleged facts showing any of those circumstances. His allegation of retaliation was described as conclusory, and the relief he requested would require federal intervention in the pending state proceedings.
The court also explained that a state pretrial detainee seeking federal relief under § 2241 must first exhaust available state-court remedies. According to the opinion, that includes seeking habeas relief in the state courts and, if necessary, appealing to New York’s highest court. The petition did not show that Jones had done so. The court therefore stated that exhaustion would still be required even if Jones could show bad faith, harassment, or irreparable injury.
Disposition
The court denied the petition as barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. It declined to allow Jones to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment.
The court also ordered Jones to show cause within 30 days, by declaration, why he should not be barred from filing future habeas petitions challenging the same ongoing criminal proceedings, arising from the September 14, 2021 arrest, without first obtaining permission from the court. The order did not impose that filing restriction immediately; it gave Jones an opportunity to respond. The court stated that the restriction would be imposed if he failed to submit the declaration or failed to show good cause.
The court ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Jones had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The clerk was instructed to keep the matter open until judgment was entered.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.