Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 26, 2024

Bynum v. State of New Jersey

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-00618
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Bynum v. State of New Jersey, Judge Swain transferred Bynum’s detention petition to New Jersey because she was detained there.

Who this affects

Felicia Bynum’s case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The opinion also stated that the transferee court would decide whether she could proceed without paying fees.

What happened

In Bynum v. State of New Jersey, Felicia Bynum challenged what she described as overcharging in an ongoing New Jersey criminal case and expressed dissatisfaction with her attorney.

The Southern District of New York treated her submissions as a petition challenging her detention under federal law. Because Bynum was detained at Essex County Correctional Facility in New Jersey, the court transferred the case to the federal court in New Jersey.

Judge Swain closed the case in New York but did not decide whether Bynum was being overcharged or whether her attorney was providing adequate representation. The New Jersey court will decide whether she may continue without paying filing fees; the court also denied fee-free status for any appeal and said a certificate allowing an appeal would not issue.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bynum v. State of New Jersey · No. 1:24-cv-00618
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Feb. 26, 2024

Background

Felicia Bynum, who was detained at Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey, sent the Southern District of New York a letter asserting that the State of New Jersey was overcharging her in an ongoing criminal case. She also submitted two forms concerning her dissatisfaction with the attorney representing her and requesting a status hearing about that representation.

Legal framework

The court construed Bynum’s submissions together as a petition for detention relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court explained that a state prisoner generally challenges custody through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but that § 2241 relief may be available to a state pretrial detainee challenging custody as unlawful under the Constitution or federal law.

A federal court must have jurisdiction over the person or entity responsible for the petitioner’s custody to hear a § 2241 petition. The court stated that jurisdiction over a petition challenging physical confinement generally lies in the federal district where the person is confined. Because Essex County Correctional Facility is in the District of New Jersey, the court concluded that the case should be transferred there in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Ruling

The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. The opinion did not decide whether Bynum was being overcharged, whether her attorney’s representation was adequate, or whether she was entitled to detention relief. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether she could proceed without paying fees.

The court also determined that Bynum had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.