Mars v. Cort
1:23-cv-01810
| E.D.N.Y | Apr 19, 2023Background:
- Petitioner Patrick Mars was arrested in Queens County on November 16, 2022, after being stopped for alleged tinted windows; he alleges an officer broke his glove compartment and searched his vehicle without probable cause or a warrant.
- Mars filed a pro se habeas petition in the Southern District of New York on February 17, 2023; the case was transferred to the Eastern District of New York because the arrest occurred in Queens.
- A Queens County criminal case (IND-73698-22) remains pending; Mars has not shown he exhausted state-court remedies for his Fourth Amendment claim.
- The court concluded a §2254 petition is premature while criminal proceedings are ongoing and that a §2241 petition also fails for lack of state-court exhaustion under Second Circuit precedent.
- The petition was dismissed without prejudice, Mars was granted 30 days to file an amended petition demonstrating exhaustion, a certificate of appealability was denied, and any appeal was certified not taken in good faith.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 | Mars contends his constitutional rights were violated by an unlawful vehicle search and seeks habeas relief | Mars's criminal case is ongoing and he has not exhausted state remedies | §2254 relief is premature; petition dismissed without prejudice |
| Availability of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for pretrial detainee | Mars alternatively seeks relief under §2241 for custody alleged to violate Constitution | Federal courts require state-court exhaustion for §2241 petitions by state detainees under decisional law | §2241 petition dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust |
| Leave to amend and procedural consequences | Mars may be permitted to amend to show exhaustion | Court may dismiss if Mars fails to amend timely | Court grants 30 days to amend; otherwise dismissal without prejudice may be entered |
| Appealability / in forma pauperis good-faith finding | Mars paid filing fee but seeks appellate review | Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; appeal would not be in good faith | Certificate of appealability denied; appeal not in good faith per §1915(a)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (requires proper exhaustion of state remedies before federal habeas relief)
- Jimenez v. Walker, 458 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2006) (discusses exhaustion and procedural posture for habeas review)
- United States ex rel. Scranton v. New York, 532 F.2d 292 (2d Cir. 1976) (establishes that exhaustion is required for §2241 petitions by state detainees)
- Camarano v. Irvin, 98 F.3d 44 (2d Cir. 1996) (a petition dismissed for failure to exhaust is not treated as an initial petition for second-or-successive purposes)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for determining whether an appeal is taken in good faith)