Marvin v. Sheriff of Orange County
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-03464
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Marvin v. Sheriff of Orange County, Judge Halpern ordered Mark Marvin to explain his habeas eligibility and dismissed Rose Marvin because she was not in custody.
Mark Marvin must explain within 60 days why his petition should not be denied for failure to meet the federal custody requirement. Rose Marvin was dismissed from the proceeding because she was not in custody. The petition was not yet finally denied as to Mark.
What happened
In Marvin v. Sheriff of Orange County, Mark Marvin challenged a family-court order that detained him for 30 days after he failed to pay child-support arrears. Rose Marvin also signed the petition and was listed as a petitioner.
The court questioned whether Mark was in custody when he filed the petition, as required for this type of federal challenge. Rose had paid $5,000 to secure Mark’s release, but the court concluded that she herself was not in custody.
The court dismissed Rose Marvin from the proceeding and ordered Mark to file a declaration within 60 days explaining why his petition should not be denied. Judge Philip M. Halpern also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying filing costs.
The detailed version
- Marvin v. Sheriff of Orange County · No. 7:20-cv-03464
- Philip Halpern
- May 13, 2020
Background
Mark Marvin filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on behalf of himself and his mother, Rose Marvin. The petition challenged an August 1, 2018 Orange County Family Court order that detained Mark for 30 days after he failed to comply with an earlier order requiring him to pay child-support arrears of $100 per month. Rose paid a $5,000 purge amount to secure Mark’s release. Both Mark and Rose signed the petition, and the petition listed Rose as a petitioner. The petitioners paid the $5 filing fee.
The custody requirement
Section 2254 allows a federal court to consider a state-court challenge only from a person who is in custody in violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. Physical incarceration is not always required, but the petitioner must face substantial restraints on liberty when the petition is filed.
The court found that Mark had not provided facts showing that he faced any restraint on his liberty when he filed the petition. He referred to a continuing “civil disability” but did not explain what that disability was. The court therefore directed him to file a declaration within 60 days showing why the petition should not be denied for failure to satisfy the custody requirement.
The court also determined that Rose was not in custody. It dismissed Rose from the proceeding because she did not satisfy the custody requirement.
Disposition
The court did not yet deny Mark’s petition. Instead, it ordered him to file a declaration within 60 days. If he timely files one, the court said it will review the declaration and, if appropriate, direct the respondents to answer. If he does not comply and cannot show good cause for the failure, the petition will be denied.
The court dismissed Rose Marvin from the proceeding. It also determined that the petitioners had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. The court further certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order on May 13, 2020.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.