Reich v. Lilley
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-01943
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Reich v. Lilley, Magistrate Judge Krause ordered more briefing on whether Reich’s habeas petition was timely and whether exceptions could apply.
Julius Reich and Respondent Lynn Lilley in Reich’s federal habeas proceeding; the court required additional briefing before deciding whether the petition could proceed.
What happened
In Reich v. Lilley, Julius Reich asked the federal court to review his state conviction under a federal habeas law. The court’s preliminary review identified a possible filing deadline problem. Reich’s conviction became final on May 24, 2021, giving him until May 24, 2022 to file, but he filed the federal petition on March 14, 2024.
The court noted that Reich filed a state post-conviction motion on May 26, 2022, after the federal deadline appeared to have expired. Because that motion may not have stopped the deadline, the court said the petition might be nearly two years late. Reich also argued that the deadline should be extended or excused because of extraordinary circumstances or actual innocence, but the court found that his submissions did not adequately explain those arguments.
Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause did not decide whether the petition was timely or whether an exception applied. He ordered Reich to file a supplemental brief of no more than 15 double-spaced pages by May 16, 2025, and allowed Respondent Lynn Lilley to file a response of the same length by June 6, 2025.
The detailed version
- Reich v. Lilley · No. 7:24-cv-01943
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 29, 2025
Background
Julius Reich brought a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a state prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence in federal court. The opinion states that Reich pleaded guilty on May 22, 2018, and was sentenced on August 15, 2018. His direct appeal sought a sentence reduction and was denied on August 26, 2020. The New York Court of Appeals denied his application for leave to appeal on February 21, 2021.
Because Reich did not seek review in the United States Supreme Court, the court determined that his conviction became final on May 24, 2021, after accounting for the 90-day review period and the weekend deadline. Under the one-year federal limitation period, his petition was due by May 24, 2022.
Reich submitted a state motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 on May 26,
- The state court denied that motion on May 1, 2023, and the Appellate Division denied leave to appeal that denial on January 26,
- Reich filed his federal habeas petition on March 14,
- The court used that date even though a filing error required the petition to be filed again on March 20, 2024.
Timeliness and possible exceptions
The court stated that a state post-conviction motion filed after the federal one-year period has expired generally does not restart or pause that period. Because Reich’s § 440.10 motion appeared to have been filed after May 24, 2022, the court stated that the federal petition may have been almost two years late.
The court also explained two possible ways Reich might seek to overcome the deadline. First, equitable tolling may be available in rare and exceptional circumstances if extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing and the petitioner acted with reasonable diligence. Second, a claim of actual innocence may create an equitable exception. The court described that exception as requiring new, reliable, and compelling evidence of factual innocence—not merely evidence that the conviction was legally deficient—and said the required showing is demanding.
Order
Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause ordered further briefing because the petition’s timeliness, or the availability of an exception to the deadline, could be dispositive. By May 16, 2025, Reich was required to file a supplemental brief, no longer than 15 pages double-spaced, explaining either why the petition was timely, why equitable tolling should apply, or why new evidence satisfied the standard for an actual-innocence exception. Lilley could file a responsive brief of no more than 15 double-spaced pages by June 6, 2025.
The opinion did not decide whether the petition was untimely, whether equitable tolling applied, whether Reich established actual innocence, or whether his underlying habeas claims had merit.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.