Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility

Background

Donelle Murphy, proceeding pro se, meaning without a lawyer, was incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility. He submitted a letter seeking an extension of time or a stay of abeyance to file a federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his New York County conviction. He said he had additional claims to exhaust in state court and had limited access to the facility law library during the COVID-19 pandemic. He also requested appointed volunteer counsel.

The opinion states that a New York Supreme Court, New York County jury convicted Murphy in 2015 of second-degree burglary, attempted first-degree rape, and first-degree sexual abuse. He received an aggregate 15-year prison term as a second violent felony offender. His state post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of defense counsel was denied. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction and denial of that motion, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on March 26, 2019.

Legal framework

A petition under § 2254 is the procedure for a person in state custody to challenge the custody as violating the United States Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. State prisoners generally must exhaust available state remedies before filing such a petition. A federal petition usually must be filed within one year after the state conviction becomes final, although the limitations period is paused while a properly filed state post-conviction or other collateral application is pending.

The court determined that Murphy’s conviction became final 90 days after the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal, on June 25, 2019. Without statutory tolling, the one-year filing period would expire on June 25, 2020. Under the prison-mailbox rule, his petition would be treated as filed when he gave it to prison officials for mailing, so the court instructed him to place it in the prison mail system by that date.

Court’s analysis

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension or stay concerning a petition that had not been filed. Murphy’s letter did not contain enough information for the court to treat it as a § 2254 petition. The court therefore did not decide the merits of his conviction-related claims.

The court explained that if Murphy filed a petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, it would be a mixed petition. Depending on the circumstances, a court could stay the petition while state remedies were completed, dismiss it without prejudice while exhaustion occurred, or consider only the exhausted claims if Murphy agreed to abandon the others. The court also cautioned that omitting claims from the petition could affect any later petition.

Disposition

The court granted Murphy leave to file a § 2254 petition and an application to proceed without prepaying fees, or to pay the $5 filing fee, by June 25, 2020. The petition had to identify each ground for relief and provide supporting facts, including both grounds already raised in his consolidated appeal and grounds he planned to raise in state post-conviction motions. The court stated that the petition would later be reviewed for substantive sufficiency and, if proper, reassigned to another district judge under the Clerk’s Office procedures.

The court denied Murphy’s request for appointed counsel without prejudice to renewal after he filed a § 2254 petition. It also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Murphy had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. If he failed to comply with the filing instructions and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would dismiss the action.