Phelps v. McCarthy
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02381
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Phelps v. McCarthy, Judge Swain denied further federal relief because Phelps had not finished his state appeals.
Darryl Phelps’s federal challenge to his conviction and requests for release from current custody were affected. The order also limits further federal submissions challenging the conviction before state remedies are exhausted.
What happened
Phelps v. McCarthy concerns Darryl Phelps’s federal challenge to his March 1, 2023 conviction. The court had previously denied his petition because his appeal was still pending in New York state court.
The court said Phelps had not exhausted his state remedies. He still needed to complete his appeal in the Appellate Division and, if necessary, seek permission to appeal from an unfavorable decision. The court therefore considered his challenges to his current custody premature.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the relief requested in Phelps’s later filings and closed the action. She also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Phelps v. McCarthy · No. 1:24-cv-02381
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 5, 2024
Background
Darryl Phelps filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his March 1, 2023 conviction. In an earlier order, the court denied the petition without prejudice because Phelps acknowledged that his appeal was still pending in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. After that order, Phelps filed several documents seeking release from his current custody at Elmira Correctional Facility.
Exhaustion of State Remedies
The court explained that Phelps’s challenge remained premature because he had not completed the required state-court process. He needed to perfect his appeal in the Appellate Division and, after an unfavorable decision there, seek leave to appeal. The court stated that Phelps could proceed in federal court only after exhausting those state remedies.
Ruling
The court denied the relief Phelps sought in ECF 18-26 and closed the action. It stated that it would not address future submissions challenging the conviction if Phelps filed them before exhausting his state remedies. The court also determined that the petition did not make a substantial showing that Phelps’s constitutional rights had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. Finally, it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required court fees.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court did not decide the merits of Phelps’s conviction challenge. It denied relief based on the failure to exhaust available state-court remedies.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.