Thomas v. Walcott
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09337
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Thomas v. Walcott, Judge McMahon transferred Thomas’s successive state-court habeas petition to the Second Circuit because appellate permission was required.
Robert Thomas, whose district-court petition was transferred to the Second Circuit and whose request to proceed without paying appeal fees was denied.
What happened
Thomas v. Walcott concerns Robert Thomas’s request for federal review of his New York state conviction. He filed the request while incarcerated, challenging a 2005 conviction that followed his guilty plea and a 15-year sentence.
Thomas filed the request under a law used to challenge federal custody, but the court treated it as a petition challenging a state-court conviction under the applicable state-custody law. The court said Thomas had already filed an earlier petition about the same conviction and that the earlier petition was decided on its merits.
Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that Thomas needed permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit before pursuing this new petition. She transferred the action there, closed the district-court case, denied a certificate needed for an appeal, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Walcott · No. 1:19-cv-09337
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 3, 2019
Background
Robert Thomas, who was incarcerated at Orleans Correctional Facility, filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas corpus is a procedure for challenging allegedly unlawful custody. Thomas challenged his April 20, 2005 judgment of conviction in New York State Supreme Court, New York County. The opinion states that he pleaded guilty and received a 15-year sentence. Thomas represented himself.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Thomas’s filing had to be treated as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because it challenged a state-court judgment on the ground that his custody violated the Constitution or federal law. The court’s records showed that Thomas had previously filed a § 2254 petition challenging the same conviction and that the earlier petition had been decided on the merits. The court therefore characterized the new filing as a second or successive petition.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a person must obtain authorization from the appropriate federal court of appeals before filing a second or successive § 2254 petition in a district court. The court stated that Thomas therefore had to ask the Second Circuit for permission to pursue the application.
Ruling and disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to mail Thomas a copy of the order and record service on the docket. In the interest of justice, she transferred the action to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The order closed the district-court case, while stating that Thomas could move to reopen it under the same civil docket number if the Second Circuit authorized him to proceed.
The court also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Thomas had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.