Fulton v. Superintendent
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-00021
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Fulton v. Superintendent, Judge Cave closed and held in abeyance Fulton’s motion to change habeas review standards pending briefing.
Jeremy Fulton’s motion to change the review standard was not decided in this order. The respondent was directed to address the motion in the answer, and Fulton was allowed to reply before the court considers the motion in its report and recommendation.
What happened
In Fulton v. Superintendent, Jeremy Fulton, representing himself, asked the court to review his petition under a fresh, nondeferential standard instead of the limited standard used for federal review of state convictions. He argued that the state appellate decision and later proceedings had addressed the merits of his claims and that the existing standard could overlook prejudice related to his guilty plea and other evidence.
The court acknowledged receiving Fulton’s motion, which was docketed as ECF No. 30. The opinion does not decide whether the court should use the requested standard or whether Fulton’s habeas petition should succeed.
Judge Sarah L. Cave terminated the motion from the active docket and held it in abeyance until the respondent filed an answer and Fulton filed a reply. The court stated that it would address the motion as part of its report and recommendation.
The detailed version
- Fulton v. Superintendent · No. 1:20-cv-00021
- George Daniels
- Aug. 19, 2020
Background
Jeremy Fulton, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a motion asking the court to change the standard it would use to review his petition for federal relief from custody. The motion sought review from the beginning rather than review under the deferential standard identified in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Fulton argued that his claim had been decided on the merits and that the state appellate court had described the substance of the evidence as “unreliable” and “dubious.” He also relied on arguments concerning exculpatory evidence, his guilty plea, alleged ineffective assistance, prejudice, and the decisions he cited.
What the Court Did
The court acknowledged receipt of Fulton’s motion, docketed at ECF No. 30. It directed that the respondent’s answer address both the petition and the motion. The answer was due October 20, 2020, and Fulton’s reply was due November 10, 2020.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Sarah L. Cave terminated the motion and held it in abeyance pending the respondent’s answer and Fulton’s reply. The court stated that it would address the motion as part of its report and recommendation in the matter referred by Judge George B. Daniels. Thus, this order managed the timing and consideration of the motion; it did not decide whether de novo review should apply or resolve the underlying habeas petition. The clerk was directed to close ECF No. 30 and mail a copy of the order to Fulton.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.