C/M

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------- X REGINA LEWIS, : : MEMORANDUM DECISION AND : ORDER Petitioner, : : 22-cv-1736 (BMC) - against - : : : NASSAU COUNTY ASSIST JOSEP GIM, : : : Respondent. : ---------------------------------------------------------- X

COGAN, District Judge.

Petitioner, a serial litigant in this and other courts, seeks habeas corpus relief under

from her on-going criminal prosecution in the Supreme Court, Nassau County. She is presently in custody and pre-trial proceedings. Her indictment is for stalking, aggravated harassment as a hate crime, and related crimes against an Assistant District Attorney for Queens County. She asserts that: (1) the State is prosecuting her in bad faith; (2) the statute under which she was indicted is unconstitutional; (3) the state court is biased against her; (4) her assigned attorney has a conflict of interest because he is a potential witness; (5) her assigned attorney is ineffective; (6) her previously assigned attorney was ineffective; and (7) there was no probable cause for her arrest and the warrant allowing her arrest and search were defective. Construing her petition as arising under

(since she is not in custody pursuant to a conviction and sentence of a state court), her petition must still be denied for failure to exhaust and under principles of abstention. See United States v. Scranton,

(2d Cir. 1976); Allen v. Maribal, No. 11-cv-2638,

(E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2011). Petitioner has taken no steps to exhaust any of her claims in state court, except her attorney has filed a motion to suppress, which has not been decided. This Court is not going to interfere with ongoing state court criminal proceedings since, if petitioner is convicted, she will, after exhaustion, have the ability to raise these same claims under

.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss is therefore granted and the petition is dismissed. As petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See

. The Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

, 444- 45 (1962).

SO ORDERED. Digitally signed by Brian M. Cogan ______________________________________ U.S.D.J.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York November 23, 2022