James v. Keyser
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:20-cv-03468
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In James v. Keyser, Magistrate Judge Aaron granted the application in part and denied it in part, extending the respondent’s deadline without deciding the habeas petition.
The respondent received additional time to respond to the non-COVID-related claims. The petitioner, James, remained subject to the existing stay concerning the COVID-19-related claim, and the petition’s underlying claims were not decided by this order.
What happened
James v. Keyser is a federal petition asking the court to review a state-court matter. The petitioner had one claim related to the COVID-19 pandemic and other claims; the COVID-19 claim was already stayed so it could be pursued in state court.
The respondent asked either to pause the deadline for answering the remaining claims until the COVID-19 claim was resolved or, alternatively, to receive 60 more days to respond. The respondent’s lawyer cited missing state-court records and said the petitioner was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted the request for a 60-day extension to respond to the non-COVID-related claims and stated that the application was granted in part and denied in part. The order did not decide the habeas petition’s underlying claims.
The detailed version
- James v. Keyser · No. 1:20-cv-03468
- Stewart Aaron
- July 1, 2020
Background
The case is a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which allows a federal court to review certain state-court convictions or custody decisions. The court had ordered the respondent to answer one claim concerning the COVID-19 pandemic within two weeks and the petitioner’s remaining claims within 60 days. The petitioner then asked to pause the COVID-19 claim to pursue it in state court, and the court granted that request while keeping the deadline for responding to the remaining claims.
Request
The respondent asked the court to suspend the deadline for the partial response until the COVID-19 claim was no longer stayed, arguing that the petition would not be decided until all claims were exhausted. In the alternative, the respondent requested a 60-day extension, until September 4, 2020. Counsel stated that the office had received state-court records but had discovered that some records were missing. Counsel also stated that the petitioner was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer.
Ruling
The court’s order stated: “Application GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.” It granted the respondent’s request for a 60-day extension to respond to the non-COVID-related claims. The order did not separately identify the portion of the application that was denied; the request had presented suspending the deadline as the primary request and the 60-day extension as the alternative. The order addressed scheduling only and did not decide the merits of the habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.