Simpson v. Greene

Background

Theodore Simpson filed this federal case in 2003 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a state prisoner to seek federal review of unlawful custody. The earlier petition challenged Simpson’s conviction. On December 18, 2003, the court denied that petition as untimely and otherwise lacking merit.

In 2020, Simpson filed two motions seeking relief from the 2003 judgment. The August 2020 motion, labeled under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d), challenged the conviction and the earlier denial of habeas relief. Simpson argued that his conviction depended on false testimony and that the prosecutor and trial court had cooperated to mislead the jury about James Venson’s credibility. The motion referred to trial materials showing that Venson was incarcerated during the period relevant to his alleged conversation with Simpson.

The April 2020 motion, labeled under Rule 60(b), primarily sought Simpson’s immediate release because of COVID-19 conditions in prison and his medical conditions. The New York Attorney General’s Office responded to the COVID-19 arguments, and the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office responded to the challenges involving the conviction.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Rule 60 relief in a habeas case is generally available only when a motion attacks the integrity of the earlier habeas proceeding. A motion that adds a new ground for release from the conviction or attacks the federal court’s earlier merits decision is treated as a new or successive habeas petition instead. A district court may deny that portion of the motion as outside Rule 60 or transfer it to the appropriate appeals court for possible authorization.

The court held that the August motion attacked Simpson’s underlying conviction and the court’s earlier resolution of his habeas claim. It therefore denied that motion as outside the scope of Rules 60(b) and 60(d). The court did not convert it into a successive habeas petition, noting the risk that doing so could harm Simpson’s ability to pursue later habeas challenges.

The court treated the April motion differently. Because Simpson sought immediate release from custody, the court determined that the request was in the nature of a habeas claim. The Attorney General’s Office argued that a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was the proper vehicle, but the court concluded that a § 2254 petition could be used when a state prisoner seeks release based on conditions of confinement.

The court construed the COVID-19 request as a § 2254 claim and stated that, at that point, it was not a successive challenge because Simpson’s earlier habeas petition had challenged his criminal judgment while the new claim challenged post-sentencing conditions of confinement. The court did not decide the merits of the COVID-19 claim. It stated that Simpson could withdraw the claim or file an amended petition containing the required information, including information about exhaustion of state remedies. The court warned that a refiled claim would be subject to the restrictions on second or successive habeas petitions.

Disposition

The order states that Simpson’s claim challenging his conviction is DENIED as outside the scope of Rules 60(b) and 60(d). Simpson’s requests made in his reply for the Bronx County District Attorney’s Office to produce the complete trial records and for more time to respond to the Attorney General’s opposition to the COVID-19 claim were DENIED as moot.

The court construed the COVID-19 claim as a request for habeas relief under § 2254 and granted Simpson leave to file an amended petition. He was required by April 18, 2021, either to submit a letter withdrawing the claim or to file the amended petition. The order states that if he failed to comply and could not show good cause, the court would deny the COVID-19 habeas claim without prejudice.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Simpson had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.