Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 16, 2023

Jones v. United States

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-08313
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Jones v. United States, Judge Swain dismissed Jones’s Section 2255 motion without prejudice because it challenged state proceedings, not a federal conviction.

Who this affects

Rafael Arden Jones’s federal challenge to his pending New York state criminal proceedings was dismissed without prejudice; the court also denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

In Jones v. United States, Rafael Arden Jones, who was representing himself and was detained before trial, asked the federal court to review criminal proceedings pending in New York state court. He filed the request under a law generally used by federal prisoners challenging federal convictions or sentences.

The court said that Section 2255 was not the proper way to challenge state criminal proceedings. It also declined to treat the filing as a different type of habeas petition because Jones had filed two other federal applications about the same state proceedings on the same day.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the Section 2255 motion without prejudice, meaning the dismissal itself did not bar another filing. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Jones v. United States · No. 1:23-cv-08313
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 16, 2023

Background

Rafael Arden Jones, proceeding without a lawyer, was a pretrial detainee at the Otis Bain Correctional Center. He filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure generally used by federal prisoners to challenge a federal conviction or sentence. His motion instead challenged criminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, under Indictment No. 70616-21 and Case No. CR-013906-21BX.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that a Section 2255 motion was not the proper vehicle for seeking relief from state-court criminal proceedings. The court discussed the usual requirement that a court give notice and an opportunity to withdraw a mislabeled habeas application before converting it to another type of petition. But Jones had already filed multiple federal applications concerning the same state pretrial proceedings. On the same day as this motion, he filed two additional applications under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, identified by docket numbers 23-CV-8295 and 23-CV-8296. The court therefore found no basis to recharacterize this motion as a Section 2241 petition.

Disposition

The court dismissed Jones’s motion under Section 2255 without prejudice because Section 2255 was not the proper procedure for challenging state criminal proceedings. The court declined to recharacterize the motion as a habeas petition. It also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Jones had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judgment was entered.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.