Brooks v. Keyser
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-03403
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brooks v. Keyser, Judge Karas ordered David Brooks to pay the filing fee or request permission to proceed without prepaying it, and explain state-court exhaustion.
David Brooks, who was proceeding without a lawyer and was serving a state sentence; the action could be dismissed if he did not comply with the court’s requirements within 30 days.
What happened
Brooks v. Keyser concerns David Brooks’s petition for release from a state prison sentence. Brooks, who was representing himself, filed the petition without paying the required fee or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees.
The court treated the petition as seeking relief under the federal law for challenging a state conviction or sentence. It explained that this law does not allow a federal court to reduce a state sentence for extraordinary reasons such as those available to some federal prisoners. The court also said Brooks had not shown that he had first pursued available remedies in state court.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered Brooks, within 30 days, either to pay the $5 filing fee or submit the required application, and to explain whether he had exhausted state remedies or why exhaustion should be excused. The case would be dismissed if Brooks did not comply, but the order did not dismiss the case or decide the petition’s merits.
The detailed version
- Brooks v. Keyser · No. 7:20-cv-03403
- Kenneth Karas
- May 13, 2020
Background
David Brooks filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for federal relief from custody, against Keyser. The order states that Brooks was proceeding without a lawyer and was serving a state sentence. He filed the petition without paying the $5 filing fee and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application.
Brooks referred to a writ for relief in “extraordinary circumstances” and cited authority concerning reductions of federal prison sentences during the COVID-19 period. The court liberally construed his filing as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the statute generally used to challenge a state-court conviction or sentence in federal court. The court explained that this statute does not authorize a federal court to reduce a state prison sentence for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” in the manner available for certain federal sentences.
Exhaustion issue
The court also explained that a person seeking relief under Section 2254 generally must first exhaust available remedies in state courts. Brooks had not indicated that he had exhausted those remedies or that they were unavailable. The court said he needed to explain whether he had sought relief in New York State courts, including the court that sentenced him, or why the exhaustion requirement should be excused. The court stated that exhaustion would also apply if the filing were instead construed under Section 2241.
Order and disposition
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ordered Brooks to pay the $5 filing fee or submit a completed IFP application within 30 days of the order. The court also required Brooks to provide the missing information about exhaustion. If he failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed. The court did not dismiss the action in this order and did not reach the merits of Brooks’s request for habeas relief. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.