Martinez v. Tomes
- 7:19-cv-07651-KMK-PED
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martinez v. Tomes, the court granted Martinez’s request to pause his habeas case while he pursued a state-court motion.
Miguel Martinez’s federal habeas case was paused while he pursued his state-court Section 440.10 motion. The order also imposed deadlines and warned of possible dismissal if he did not comply.
What happened
In Martinez v. Tomes, the petitioner asked the court to pause his case while a state-court motion under Section 440.10 was resolved. The respondent did not oppose the request.
The court found good cause because Martinez sought the stay promptly to protect an unexhausted claim and was trying to pursue it in state court without delay. The court also found no indication of intentional delay and could not conclude that the claim was plainly meritless.
The court granted the stay. The court, whose judge’s name is unclear in the opinion text, required Martinez to ask to lift the stay and reopen the case within 30 days after the state-court motion and any available appeal were resolved.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Tomes · No. 7:19-cv-07651-KMK-PED
- Sept. 9, 2020
Background
The petitioner, Miguel Martinez, asked to stay, or pause, this federal habeas case while he pursued a motion under Section 440.10 in the trial court. The respondent was given an opportunity to reply but filed no opposition. The opinion describes the federal petition as containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the rule that permits a stay of a petition containing exhausted and unexhausted claims when three conditions are met: the petitioner shows good cause for not yet exhausting the claims in state court; the unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless; and the petitioner has not used intentionally delaying tactics.
The court found good cause because Martinez timely requested the stay to protect his unexhausted claim and was seeking to exhaust it in state court without delay. The court also could not conclude at that time that the unexhausted claim was plainly without merit. Finally, it found no evidence that Martinez had engaged in intentionally delaying litigation tactics.
Ruling and requirements
The court granted Martinez’s unopposed motion for a stay. The proceedings were stayed pending resolution of the Section 440.10 motion, including any available appellate review.
After that motion was resolved, Martinez was required to move within 30 days to lift the stay and reopen the case. The court warned that failure to comply could lead it to vacate the stay retroactively and dismiss the habeas petition. The court also required Martinez to file an amended petition stating all of his claims, including claims raised in the Section 440.10 motion, within 30 days after his state-court remedies were exhausted. The opinion did not decide the merits of the habeas claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.