Moses v. Collado

Background

Sharife Moses filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asking the federal court to review his state-court custody. His petition included an ineffective-assistance claim against trial counsel. Moses also stated that he was pursuing two additional ineffective-assistance claims in state court and asked the federal court to stay, or pause, the federal case while he exhausted those claims.

The stay request concerned a state-court motion under Section 440.10 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law. The federal court had referred the request to Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman, and the respondent’s deadline to answer the federal petition had been postponed.

Reasoning

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rhines v. Weber, which says that a federal habeas case may be stayed to allow exhaustion of state claims only when the petitioner shows good cause for failing to exhaust them earlier. The respondent initially argued that Moses had not shown good cause. Moses’s explanation was that, as a layperson, he needed years to understand criminal law and develop his claims. The court concluded that this explanation was insufficient.

The court also identified inconsistencies between Moses’s federal petition and his state-court motion. In the federal petition, Moses identified claims that trial counsel failed to request a jury instruction on an affirmative defense to felony murder and failed to object to the prosecution’s summation. His state-court motion raised the first claim but replaced the second with a claim that counsel failed to present critical facts during a suppression-court hearing. The court stated that Moses therefore had not tried to exhaust one of the claims identified in the federal petition and appeared to be pursuing a claim in state court that he had not timely raised federally. The court noted that federal habeas claims generally are subject to a one-year filing limitation.

The state trial court had denied Moses’s Section 440.10 motion but granted him permission to appeal to the Appellate Division. The respondent then stated that she did not object to staying the federal case while that appeal proceeded. The court nevertheless concluded that this changed position did not overcome the requirement that Moses show good cause and diligent efforts to exhaust his claims.

Ruling and effect

Judge Freeman concluded that staying the federal habeas proceedings would be inappropriate. Rather than pausing the case, the court ordered the respondent to file an opposition to the petition and the relevant state-court record by June 30, 2020. Moses could file a reply by August 31, 2020. The respondent also had to mail the order to Moses and file proof of service. The court said it would consider reasonable requests for extensions related to COVID-19 logistical difficulties.

The order did not decide whether Moses’s ineffective-assistance claims were legally or factually valid. It addressed only whether the federal proceedings should be stayed and set the schedule for the respondent’s response.