Babyrev v. Belfi
- Laura Swain
- 1:19-cv-11693
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Babyrev v. Belfi, Judge Swain added COVID-19 constitutional claims to the existing petition and ordered a prompt response.
Vadim Babyrev, his appointed counsel, and the respondents in the § 2254 proceeding were affected by the court’s treatment of the supplemental filing and the new briefing deadlines.
What happened
Babyrev v. Belfi involved Vadim Babyrev’s petition under a federal law allowing challenges to state custody. After the court appointed counsel, Babyrev submitted an additional filing about the Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Facility’s response to COVID-19.
Counsel asked the court to treat that filing as a separate petition under another federal habeas statute and to include claims under the Eighth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The court instead treated it as an addition to Babyrev’s existing petition.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the respondent to answer the added claims by May 29, 2020, and directed counsel to respond by June 5, 2020. The court did not decide whether the constitutional claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Babyrev v. Belfi · No. 1:19-cv-11693
- Laura Swain
- May 19, 2020
Background
Vadim Babyrev filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The opinion states that he initially filed the petition without a lawyer, that the court later appointed counsel, and that he then filed another document without a lawyer titled “Supplemental Pleading.” That filing asked the court to add a claim that the Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Facility’s response to COVID-19 violated due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The court had directed appointed counsel to review the supplemental filing and advise the court. Counsel asked the court to treat the filing as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asserting Eighth Amendment claims as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims expressly stated in the filing.
Court’s Analysis
The court relied on Second Circuit authority stating that a state prisoner may use a petition under § 2254 to challenge either the imposition or execution of a sentence, including the constitutionality of the person’s custody. Based on that authority, the court treated the supplemental filing as an additional part of Babyrev’s existing § 2254 petition, rather than as a separate § 2241 petition. The court said the supplemental material asserted violations of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the respondent to file an answer to the claims asserted, or treated as asserted, in the supplemental filing by May 29, 2020. The court directed Babyrev’s counsel to file a response on his behalf by June 5, 2020, while leaving the respondent’s June 8, 2020 deadline to answer the original petition unchanged. The order addressed how the additional claims would proceed and set deadlines; it did not decide the merits of those claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.