Brooks v. Keyser
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-03403
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brooks v. Keyser, Judge Karas treated a new COVID-19 release petition as an amendment to Brooks’s earlier case and closed the new case administratively.
David Brooks and the related federal cases numbered 20-CV-3642 and 20-CV-3403; the newer case was administratively closed and its petition was transferred into the earlier case as an amended petition.
What happened
In Brooks v. Keyser, David Brooks sought immediate release from custody because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court noted that he had already filed an earlier petition raising the same claim.
The court treated the new petition, case number 20-CV-3642, as related to the earlier case, number 20-CV-3403. It ordered the Clerk of Court to file the new petition as an amended petition in the earlier case and to administratively close the new case.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not decide whether Brooks was entitled to release. The court left in place an earlier order requiring Brooks to submit a filing fee or an application to proceed without paying it and to explain whether he had exhausted his state remedies or why that requirement should be excused.
The detailed version
- Brooks v. Keyser · No. 7:20-cv-03403
- Kenneth Karas
- May 15, 2020
Background
David Brooks filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking immediate release from custody because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The opinion states that Brooks had filed an earlier petition raising the same claim in case number 20-CV-3403. The court accepted the new action as related to that earlier matter.
Court’s action
The court liberally construed the new filing as an amended petition in case number 20-CV-3403. An amended petition is a filing that changes or supplements an earlier petition. The court relied on authorities stating that a petition seeking release from unlawful custody may be amended under the rules governing civil cases.
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to file the petition from case number 20-CV-3642 as an amended petition in case number 20-CV-3403. It also ordered that case number 20-CV-3642 be administratively closed, meaning the newer docket was closed for case-management purposes while the matter proceeded in the earlier case. The order directed that a copy be filed in both actions.
Pending requirements and effect
The court stated that its earlier order in case number 20-CV-3403 remained in effect. That order required Brooks to submit either the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying the fee, and to explain how he had exhausted available state remedies or why the exhaustion requirement should be excused.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas did not rule on the merits of Brooks’s request for release or decide whether the exhaustion requirement should be excused. The order changed how the two related filings would proceed and administratively closed the newer case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.