Hairston v. Bell
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-06503
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Hairston v. Bell, Judge Roman denied the petition as untimely after adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Eryc Hairston’s federal petition was denied, and the case was closed. Earl Bell, identified in the caption as the superintendent and respondent, was the opposing party. Hairston was also denied a certificate of appealability and permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Hairston v. Bell, Eryc Hairston challenged his 2016 New York murder conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient. A magistrate judge recommended denying his federal petition because it was filed after the one-year deadline.
Hairston objected, arguing that his appellate lawyer failed to tell him important information and that the deadline should be extended. The district court found that he had repeated an argument already considered and rejected, so it reviewed the objections only for clear error.
Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted the recommendation in full and denied the petition. The court entered judgment, closed the case, declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Hairston v. Bell · No. 7:21-cv-06503
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 10, 2024
Background
Eryc Hairston, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2016 New York state-court conviction for second-degree murder. He argued that insufficient evidence supported the conviction. The petition was filed on July 27, 2021.
Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison issued a report and recommendation stating that the petition was untimely. The state appellate court affirmed Hairston’s conviction on December 19, 2018, and New York’s highest court denied leave to appeal on April 8, 2019. The conviction became final on July 8, 2019, so the one-year federal filing period expired on July 8, 2020, absent a legally recognized extension.
Timeliness and equitable tolling
Hairston argued that the deadline should be extended because a corrections officer had confiscated, lost, or destroyed his legal materials; his appellate lawyer had not communicated with him about the appeal; he had diligently tried to obtain legal materials and transcripts; and COVID-19-related circumstances prevented a timely filing.
Judge Davison rejected those arguments. The alleged loss of legal materials occurred in June 2017, three years before the deadline. A court clerk informed Hairston around April 20, 2020, that his application for leave to appeal had been denied on April 8, 2019, leaving more than two and a half months before the deadline. Hairston also did not explain why the requested materials were necessary to prepare the petition or how COVID-19 prevented timely filing.
Objections and review
Hairston objected to the report and recommendation, but the district court found that he did not identify a specific finding by Judge Davison and instead repeated the argument about his appellate lawyer. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues.
The court agreed with Judge Davison’s analysis, finding that he used the proper legal standards, accurately described the facts, and reasonably applied the law. The court concluded that none of Hairston’s arguments provided a basis for relief.
Ruling
Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and denied the petition. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.
The court also ruled that Hairston had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The opinion resolved the petition on timeliness grounds and did not decide whether the evidence was actually sufficient to support Hairston’s conviction.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.