Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:20-cv-03076
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Murphy v. Warden, Judge Gorenstein ordered respondent to refile its response to a habeas stay request, warning the stay may be granted if respondent fails.
The order directly affects Donelle Murphy’s request to pause his habeas case and requires the Warden of Attica Correctional Facility to submit a compliant response.
What happened
In Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility, the petitioner asked to pause his habeas petition. The court had ordered the respondent to fully address that request under the standard from Rhines v. Weber.
The court found that the respondent’s June 30, 2021 letter largely repeated an earlier inadequate letter and did not meaningfully apply the required standard. The court also criticized the respondent for repeating an argument that an earlier order had rejected and for providing vague arguments without supporting legal authority.
Judge Gorenstein ordered the respondent to file a properly formatted legal memorandum by July 14, 2021, addressing the stay request and related issues, including the status of the petitioner’s state-court motion. The court did not decide the stay request in this order, but warned that the stay may be granted as unopposed if the respondent failed to submit a proper memorandum.
The detailed version
- Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility · No. 1:20-cv-03076
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- July 1, 2021
Background
Donelle Murphy applied for a stay of his habeas petition. A stay would pause the federal case while related matters were addressed. The court had previously ordered the respondent to address the request fully and to apply the standard from Rhines v. Weber. The court had also previously rejected the respondent’s argument that Murphy needed to amend his petition to raise claims connected to his state-court motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10.
Court’s analysis
The respondent submitted a June 30, 2021 letter that largely reproduced an earlier letter the court had found inadequate. Its discussion of the Rhines standard consisted of one paragraph, cited no legal authority, and merely stated that it was unclear whether the circumstances showed “good cause” for delay. The court held that this vague and conclusory statement did not comply with its June 23 order. The court similarly criticized the respondent’s unsupported assertion that Murphy could no longer exhaust the claim in state court.
The court also noted that the respondent again argued that Murphy had not raised the “treaty” claims in his habeas petition and that those claims would now be untimely. The court stated that this argument had already been rejected in its May 24 order. The respondent offered no reason to reconsider that decision and no explanation why a reconsideration request would be timely. The court also noted that the June 30 filing was improperly submitted as a letter motion under the court’s filing rules.
Order and effect
The court directed the respondent to submit, by July 14, 2021, a memorandum of law complying with the court’s rules and fully addressing the Rhines standard and all related issues. It also directed the respondent to investigate whether Murphy had refiled his § 440.10 motion and to report that motion’s status. The court warned that, if the respondent did not file a proper memorandum with detailed legal argument and case citations, the stay might be granted as unopposed. This order did not grant or deny the stay and did not decide the merits of Murphy’s habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.