Elleby v. The United States
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-02935
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Elleby v. Smith, Judge Engelmayer denied reconsideration and compassionate release, reaffirming dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Taye L. Elleby’s request for release from state custody was denied, and his petition remained dismissed without prejudice because he had not shown that he exhausted state remedies.
What happened
Taye L. Elleby v. Brandon J. Smith concerned Elleby’s request for release from state custody to home confinement during the pandemic. Elleby filed the petition without a lawyer, asking for relief under the federal law that allows challenges to state custody.
The court had dismissed his petition without prejudice because he had not first completed available state remedies. Elleby later sent a letter asking the court to reconsider and grant compassionate release under a law that applies to people in federal custody.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied the compassionate-release motion because Elleby was in state custody and declined to reconsider the earlier dismissal because Elleby provided no evidence that he had exhausted state remedies. The court reaffirmed the earlier dismissal without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Elleby v. The United States · No. 1:20-cv-02935
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 8, 2020
Background
Taye L. Elleby filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking to be released from custody to home confinement because of the pandemic. The opinion states that Elleby proceeded without a lawyer and was in state custody at Greene Correctional Facility.
The court previously dismissed the petition without prejudice because Elleby had not exhausted his state remedies, meaning he had not first completed the available state-court process. The opinion says this dismissal occurred on May 22, 2020.
Later Letter and Applicable Law
The court received a letter from Elleby on June 4, 2020. The court treated the letter as a motion asking it to reconsider the earlier ruling and grant compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582.
The court held that § 3582 governs release of defendants in federal custody, not people in state custody such as Elleby. It therefore concluded that it could not grant release under that statute. The court also stated that Elleby’s discussion of cases allowing the federal government to waive § 3582’s administrative-exhaustion requirement did not matter because this case was not governed by § 3582.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer declined to reconsider the earlier dismissal because Elleby did not provide evidence that he had exhausted his state remedies. The court stated that there was no apparent reason to excuse the exhaustion requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
The court denied Elleby’s motion for compassionate release under § 3582 and reaffirmed its earlier dismissal of the petition without prejudice. The opinion refers to the earlier dismissal as occurring on May 22, 2020, but the final paragraph refers to a May 20, 2020 opinion.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.