Mayrant v. McCarthy
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-09324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Mayrant v. Keyser, Judge Moses granted a stay while Mayrant exhausts his state-court challenge.
Raymond Mayrant and the respondent in his federal habeas proceeding; the case remains stayed while the New York state court considers Mayrant’s motion to vacate his judgment.
What happened
In Mayrant v. Keyser, Raymond Mayrant asked the federal court to pause his habeas case while a New York state court considered his motion to vacate his conviction.
Mayrant argued that the felony complaint starting his criminal case did not establish probable cause and that the state court therefore lacked authority to try and convict him. The respondent agreed that this claim had not yet been presented fully to the state courts and joined the request for a stay, without taking a position on the claim’s merits.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the application and stayed the case until 45 days after the state court decides Mayrant’s motion. The order directed Mayrant to notify the federal court after that decision and warned that failing to do so could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Mayrant v. McCarthy · No. 1:20-cv-09324
- George Daniels
- Mar. 8, 2021
Background
Raymond Mayrant filed a federal petition challenging his state criminal conviction. The opinion materials identify a pending motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 asking the state court to vacate the judgment. The federal materials state that Mayrant was proceeding without a lawyer.
Mayrant’s federal claim concerned the felony complaint used to begin his prosecution. He argued that the complaint did not establish reasonable cause, or probable cause, because it allegedly failed to explain the witnesses’ bases of knowledge and the grounds for believing their information. He contended that this defect violated the Fourth Amendment and meant the state court lacked jurisdiction to try and convict him. The materials do not decide whether those arguments are correct.
Exhaustion and Stay Request
The respondent stated that Mayrant’s claim was unexhausted because his related state-court motion was still pending. Federal habeas exhaustion generally requires a state court to have an opportunity to address a claim before the federal court grants relief. The respondent therefore joined Mayrant’s request to stay the federal proceedings, including the deadline for the respondent’s response. The respondent expressly made no concession about the merits of Mayrant’s arguments and did not take a position on the facts or allegations in the motion.
Ruling
Judge Barbara Moses granted the application. The action was stayed and held in abeyance until 45 days after the state court issued a decision on Mayrant’s Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 motion. Mayrant was directed to notify the federal court after receiving a decision. The order warned that failure to notify the court timely and request that the stay be lifted could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not resolve the merits of Mayrant’s constitutional or jurisdictional arguments.
Disposition and Case-Name Note
The court granted the stay application. The supplied case-name metadata says “Mayrant v. McCarthy,” while the opinion text and the signed order caption identify the matter as “Mayrant v. Keyser.” The opinion is signed by Barbara Moses, not George Daniels; this summary follows the caption and signature appearing in the opinion text.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.