Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 23, 2020

Murphy v. Warden Attica Correctional Facility

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:20-cv-04673
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Donelle Murphy v. Attica Correctional Facility, Judge Broderick administratively closed a duplicate petition and denied appeal-related fee waiver.

Who this affects

Donelle Murphy, whose petition and related requests were transferred to an earlier related proceeding and whose separate action was administratively closed.

What happened

Donelle Murphy v. Attica Correctional Facility involved a federal petition challenging custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Murphy also asked for a lawyer and for the case to be paused. He paid the $5 filing fee.

The court found that the petition and related requests belonged in Murphy’s earlier related case, No. 1:20-CV-3076. It directed the clerk to file them there, record the fee payment, and administratively close this separate case.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick also ruled that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue because the petition did not substantially show a constitutional violation. He certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Murphy v. Warden Attica Correctional Facility · No. 1:20-cv-04673
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
June 23, 2020

Background

An earlier order gave Murphy until June 25, 2020, to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and either submit an application to proceed without paying court fees or pay the $5 filing fee. On June 16, 2020, the court received Murphy’s § 2254 petition, a request for appointed counsel, and a request to hold the proceeding in abeyance, meaning to pause it. Murphy also paid the $5 filing fee.

The clerk opened this separate civil action after receiving those submissions. The opinion states that the submissions should instead have been filed in Murphy’s earlier related proceeding, No. 1:20-CV-3076.

Court’s Actions

The court directed the clerk to file the petition and request for appointed counsel in the earlier related proceeding and to record there that Murphy had paid the filing fee. It also directed the clerk to administratively close this action and mail a copy of the order to Murphy, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.

The court further stated that the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It therefore ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

Effect of the Order

This order administratively closed the separately opened action and moved the submissions to the earlier related proceeding. The opinion does not decide the substance of Murphy’s § 2254 claims in this order. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order on June 23, 2020.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.