Service v. Noeth
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:17-cv-04941
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Service v. Noeth, Judge Netburn granted a stay so Service could exhaust additional state-court claims before pursuing his habeas petition.
Michael Service’s federal habeas petition is paused while he pursues additional claims in state court; Joseph Noeth may later challenge the timeliness of any amended claims.
What happened
In Service v. Noeth, Michael Service asked to pause his federal petition challenging his custody so he could pursue additional claims in state court through a legal procedure called a writ of error coram nobis.
The court granted the motion to stay and held the petition in abeyance while Service pursued those state-court claims. The court also allowed him to amend his petition if the state court rejected the additional claims, while allowing Noeth to argue that the amended claims were filed too late. Service must file a status letter within 30 days after the state court makes a final decision.
Judge Sarah Netburn issued the order on February 8, 2021.
The detailed version
- Service v. Noeth · No. 1:17-cv-04941
- Sarah Netburn
- Feb. 8, 2021
Background
On December 3, 2020, Petitioner Michael Service moved to stay his federal habeas petition so he could exhaust additional claims in state court through a writ of error coram nobis. Exhaustion means giving the state courts an opportunity to consider claims before seeking federal habeas relief.
Ruling
The court granted Service’s motion to stay. The habeas petition was stayed and held in abeyance while Service pursued the additional state-court claims. The court cited the rule that a stay and abeyance may be appropriate when a petitioner had good cause for not exhausting claims earlier and the claims are not plainly meritless.
The court also granted Service permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to amend his petition to add the additional claims if the state court rejected them. Respondent Joseph Noeth may argue, in responding to the amended petition on the merits, that the new claims do not relate back to the original petition and are therefore untimely. Service was ordered to file a status letter within 30 days after a final decision on the writ of error coram nobis. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion listed at ECF No. 44.
Effect of the Order
This order pauses the federal habeas case and does not decide the merits of Service’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.