Slater v. Keyser

Background

Marvin Slater filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking immediate release from his state custody. He alleged that conditions at Sullivan Correctional Facility during the COVID-19 pandemic— including closely spaced cells and insufficient use of protective equipment— exposed him to serious health risks. He stated that he was 61 years old and had high blood pressure and diabetes-related complications. Slater was serving an indeterminate sentence of 30 years to life after 1997 New York state convictions for two counts of second-degree murder and one count each of first- and second-degree robbery.

William F. Keyser, the facility’s superintendent, opposed the petition. He argued that Slater’s challenge concerned prison conditions and therefore should have been brought as a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than as a habeas petition. Keyser also argued that Slater had not exhausted his available state-court remedies. The opinion states that Keyser separately challenged Slater’s claims on the merits, but the court did not reach that issue.

The Type of Petition

The court declined to dismiss the petition solely because Slater brought it under § 2254. It explained that courts had disagreed about whether a state prisoner seeking release because of prison conditions may use a habeas petition, particularly in COVID-19 cases. The court noted that a claim seeking release from custody can fall within the traditional purpose of habeas relief, while a claim seeking only improved prison conditions generally may be brought under § 1983.

Because Slater sought immediate release, the court found that he had a strong argument that § 2254 could provide a source of relief. The court reserved judgment on the unresolved legal question whether habeas was the proper vehicle for this particular conditions-of-confinement claim because the petition had an independent procedural defect: failure to exhaust state remedies.

Failure to Exhaust State Remedies

Federal habeas law generally requires a state prisoner to present federal claims to the state courts before a federal court may grant relief. The petitioner must fairly present the federal claims to the state courts and pursue them through the highest state court from which a decision can be obtained.

Slater had filed a state habeas petition under Article 70 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules. The Sullivan County Supreme Court dismissed that petition on July 8, 2020. The state-court docket showed that Slater had not appealed the dismissal, even though state law allowed him to do so. The federal court therefore concluded that he had not exhausted all available state remedies.

The court also rejected applying an exception to the exhaustion requirement. It found that Slater had not shown that state corrective procedures were unavailable or ineffective, or that pursuing them would be futile. The court emphasized that New York courts could consider release requests arising from COVID-19 and that state courts should have the first opportunity to evaluate Slater’s constitutional claims and develop a factual record concerning prison conditions, medical risks, and possible state-law remedies.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice to refiling after Slater exhausted his state-court claims. The court did not decide whether the conditions of confinement violated Slater’s federal constitutional rights or whether he was entitled to release. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.