Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility

Background

Donelle Murphy filed a federal petition challenging his conviction. The opinion states that Murphy was litigating without a lawyer. Murphy’s filings referred to ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, alleged errors by the trial court, and an issue involving the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United States and Japan. Murphy asserted that he had been tried without being allowed to confront the complainant, who had left the country, and that counsel had not properly raised the treaty issue.

Murphy also sought review in state court under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10. The respondent argued that the treaty-related claim had not been included in the federal petition and would therefore be a new, potentially untimely claim. The court reviewed the petition and an earlier letter incorporated into it and rejected that argument. The court liberally construed the petition to include the same treaty-related and ineffective-assistance issues raised in Murphy’s state-court motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court determined that the petition contained both exhausted claims—claims already presented to the state courts—and unexhausted claims—claims still being presented there. Such a petition is called a “mixed petition.” The court explained that one available option is to pause the federal case while the petitioner completes state-court review. Another option is to proceed only with the exhausted claims, if the petitioner abandons the unexhausted claims in federal court.

The court said that, unless Murphy sent a letter choosing to abandon the unexhausted claims in federal court, it would assume he preferred to seek a stay. Under the governing standard, a stay could issue only if Murphy showed good cause for not exhausting the claims earlier, that the unexhausted claims were potentially meritorious, and that he had not intentionally delayed the litigation. The court stated that Murphy’s earlier request for a stay did not address those requirements.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted Murphy leave to file a letter or memorandum addressing all three requirements. The filing was due June 11, 2021, and the respondent’s response was due June 25, 2021. The order did not decide whether Murphy’s claims would succeed and did not itself grant or deny the requested stay. The opinion’s footnote states that the court assumed the § 440.10 motion had been or would soon be filed, but that the court would consider an application to deny or vacate a stay if the respondent provided proof that it had not been filed.