Thompson v. Keyser
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-03783
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Thompson v. Keyser, Judge Stanton denied Thompson’s reconsideration motion because he was not in custody under the conviction challenged.
Benjamin E. Thompson’s challenge to his 2003 state conviction was not reconsidered. The court denied his motion and stated that it lacked jurisdiction because he was no longer in custody under that conviction.
What happened
In Thompson v. Keyser, Benjamin E. Thompson, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its denial of his petition challenging his 2003 New York conviction. The court had previously ruled that he was no longer serving the sentence for that conviction.
Thompson’s filing cited several procedural rules, and the court treated it as requests to change the judgment, reconsider the decision, or obtain relief from the order. The court explained that Thompson had completed the sentence and post-release supervision for the 2003 conviction, even though he was incarcerated for a different 2010 conviction.
Judge Louis L. Stanton denied the motion. He concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition because Thompson was not in custody under the conviction he challenged, and Thompson had not shown a basis for reconsideration or other relief from the earlier order.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. Keyser · No. 1:20-cv-03783
- Louis Stanton
- Sept. 24, 2020
Background
Benjamin E. Thompson, appearing without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his November 7, 2003 conviction in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County. On September 2, 2020, the court denied the petition because Thompson had completely served the sentence for that conviction and was no longer in custody under it. The opinion states that Thompson was then incarcerated under a 2010 Suffolk County conviction.
Thompson later filed a submission titled “Motion to Reargue Under C.P.L.R. 2221(a)(2)(d)(2) Invoking Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(4) Through U.D.C.A. 2102.” The court interpreted the filing liberally as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment, a motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3 for reconsideration, and alternatively a motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from the order or judgment.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that motions under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3 require the movant to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. Thompson attached part of a state-court decision stating that he had served the entire sentence, including five years of post-release supervision, for the 2003 conviction, which expired on July 10, 2014. The court concluded that this material confirmed that Thompson was not in custody under the conviction challenged in the petition.
Because a federal habeas petition requires the petitioner to be in custody under the state-court judgment being challenged, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The court also stated that Thompson had not shown that it overlooked controlling legal or factual matters.
For Rule 60(b), which permits relief from an order or judgment for specified reasons, the court held that Thompson had not alleged facts supporting relief under clauses (1) through (5), including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, or a void judgment. The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), finding that Thompson had not shown extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
Disposition
The court denied Thompson’s motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, denied the motion under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5), denied the motion under Rule 60(b)(6), and ultimately denied the motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to mail Thompson a copy of the order and note service on the docket.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.