Lithgow v. Keyser
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-03655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lithgow v. Keyser, Judge Lehrburger lifted a stay after Lithgow could no longer exhaust his COVID-19 claim in state court.
Bismark Lithgow, the petitioner proceeding without a lawyer, and William F. Keyser, the respondent; the order also set briefing deadlines for the pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Lithgow v. Keyser, the court had paused Bismark Lithgow’s federal petition so he could pursue state-court remedies for a claim concerning COVID-19. Lithgow then filed a state-court petition, but that petition was dismissed, and he did not appeal before the deadline expired.
The respondent told the court that Lithgow could no longer complete the required state-court process through that petition. The respondent also said that Lithgow might have other ways to pursue the claim in state court. The federal court’s order did not decide the pending motion to dismiss.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger lifted the stay and set deadlines for Lithgow to oppose the pending motion to dismiss and for the respondent to reply. The Clerk’s Office was directed to mail the order to Lithgow, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Lithgow v. Keyser · No. 1:20-cv-03655
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 30, 2021
Background
Lithgow is the petitioner in a federal petition for habeas relief, meaning a request challenging the legality of his custody. On July 20, 2020, the court granted a stay, or temporary pause, so he could exhaust—complete the available state-court review of—his claim concerning COVID-19.
On April 29, 2021, Keyser notified the court that Lithgow had filed a state-court habeas petition, that the state court had dismissed it, and that Lithgow had not appealed within the required deadline. The notice stated that Lithgow therefore could no longer exhaust his COVID-19 claim through that state-court petition. Keyser also advised that Lithgow might have other procedural means to pursue the claim in state court.
Ruling
The court lifted the stay. It stated that Lithgow could not bring the COVID-19 claim in this federal habeas proceeding because he had not fully exhausted the corresponding state-court claim. The order did not rule on the pending motion to dismiss; instead, it allowed Lithgow to submit opposition by June 15, 2021, and allowed Keyser to file a reply by July 15, 2021.
Other Case Administration
The Clerk’s Office was directed to mail a copy of the order to Lithgow pro se, meaning without a lawyer, and to note service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.