Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility
- James Cott
- 1:20-cv-03076
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Murphy v. Warden, Judge Cott denied counsel and said Murphy must pursue his state-court motion separately from his federal petition.
Donelle Murphy, whose request to combine his state-court motion with the federal petition was not granted and whose request for appointed counsel was denied; the federal case remained pending.
What happened
In Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility, Donelle Murphy asked the court to confirm receipt of his filing and to combine his state-court motion with his federal petition. The court confirmed receiving his December 11, 2020 letter and papers for a motion under Section 440.10 of New York law.
The court said it had no legal authority to combine a state-court motion with a federal petition. It told Murphy to pursue that motion in state court and said he might need to file or file it again because the respondent reported that no post-conviction applications were pending there.
Judge James L. Cott denied Murphy’s request for appointed volunteer counsel. The court said there was not enough basis to determine that the petition had merit, and noted that Murphy’s request to pause the federal case while he pursued state remedies was still pending.
The detailed version
- Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility · No. 1:20-cv-03076
- James Cott
- Apr. 27, 2021
Background
Donelle Murphy asked the court to confirm that it had received his last submission and sought to combine his state-court motion under Section 440.10 with his federal petition. The court confirmed receiving Murphy’s December 11, 2020 letter and a copy of his Section 440.10 motion papers.
The court stated that it had no legal authority to combine a motion pending in state court with a federal petition. It therefore said Murphy would have to pursue the Section 440.10 motion in state court. The court also noted that, according to the respondent’s December 23, 2020 letter, no post-conviction applications were then pending in state court. If Murphy had not already done so, the court said he might need to file or refile the motion there.
Request for Appointed Counsel
Murphy also requested appointment of volunteer counsel. The court explained that people generally have no constitutional right to a lawyer in federal custody-challenge proceedings. Under the Criminal Justice Act, however, a court may appoint counsel for an indigent person when the interests of justice require it. The court said relevant considerations include the likelihood of success, the complexity of the legal issues, and the person’s ability to investigate and present the case.
Ruling
Judge James L. Cott denied the request for appointed counsel. The court found that there was not a sufficient basis to determine that the petition had merit. It also noted that Murphy’s request to pause the federal proceedings while he exhausted certain state remedies was still pending and could affect how the case proceeded. This order did not decide the merits of the federal petition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.