Valenzuela v. Keyser

Background

Paulino Valenzuela, who was representing himself, was incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility. He had been convicted in New York State court of second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. His aggregate sentence was 75 years to life.

Valenzuela filed an emergency petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking release from prison because of alleged COVID-19 risks at Sullivan. He alleged, among other things, that a correctional staff member with a high fever and other COVID-19 symptoms had worked at the facility, that newly hired officers were not physically screened, that the facility did not follow some federal health guidance, and that inmates could not adequately distance or maintain hygiene. He also alleged that he faced a higher risk of serious illness because of his age and medical history.

Valenzuela had already filed a separate § 2254 petition in 2019, and that petition remained pending when he filed the emergency petition.

How the court treated the emergency petition

The court explained that, under Second Circuit law, when a person files a second habeas petition before the first one has reached a final decision, the second filing should be treated as a motion to amend the first petition. The court therefore construed Valenzuela’s emergency petition as a request to add the COVID-19 claims to his earlier petition.

Exhaustion requirement

Before a federal court may grant relief under § 2254, a state prisoner generally must first present the federal claim to the state courts and use the available state review procedures. This requirement gives state courts an opportunity to address the alleged violation before the federal court does so.

The court found that Valenzuela had not shown that he presented his COVID-19 claims to New York courts. The respondent had contacted the clerk’s office for New York Supreme Court in Sullivan County and was unable to locate any pending matters involving Valenzuela. Valenzuela also had not provided evidence that he had pursued state remedies.

The court rejected Valenzuela’s argument that exhaustion should be excused. It found that state-court procedures were available for his claims because they concerned prison conditions and facts outside the trial record. The court also noted that emergency coronavirus applications had been treated as essential proceedings in New York and that New York courts had considered claims seeking release from state custody during the pandemic. Valenzuela had not shown that pursuing relief in state court would be futile.

Ruling

The court concluded that adding the COVID-19 claims to the earlier petition would be futile because the claims were unexhausted. It therefore denied the emergency petition without prejudice and denied without prejudice the request to amend the earlier petition. The court did not address the respondent’s additional arguments concerning whether the claims had to be brought under a different statute, whether the alleged conditions violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, or whether Valenzuela satisfied the requirements for a prisoner-release order.

In the conclusion, Judge Kenneth M. Karas stated that the separate action concerning the emergency petition was dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close Case No. 20-CV-3077.