McCray v. Anderson

Background

Cerious McCray, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a renewed motion asking the court to strike Adrian H. Anderson’s answer to McCray’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a procedure for challenging certain custody or conviction-related issues. McCray argued that he had not properly received Anderson’s answer and supporting papers. He also requested a hearing and default judgment, additional time to file a reply, and permission to seek additional records.

McCray had previously made two requests for default judgment based on the same service issue, and the court had denied both. After the second request, the court ordered Anderson to serve the answer and supporting papers again and file proof of service. Anderson did so. The record showed that the papers were placed in McCray’s secured property at the Dutchess County Jail, and McCray was notified that the materials were available for inspection. McCray later acknowledged that he received and examined the answer and supporting papers.

Ruling on service, striking the answer, and default judgment

Judge Andrew E. Krause found that Anderson properly and timely served the answering papers in June 2020 and again in July 2020. The court concluded that there was no basis to strike Anderson’s answer or enter default judgment. Those parts of McCray’s motion were denied.

Requests for additional records

McCray also sought various transcripts, notes, briefs, motions, exhibits, and other state-court materials. The court treated his request for permission to file a separate records motion as a request for production of the listed materials.

The court denied McCray’s request for untranscribed stenographer notes because he had not shown that the notes were relevant or necessary to resolving his claims. The court also denied requests for several documents that were not appellate briefs and therefore were not required to be included under the governing rules for federal habeas cases. These included certain pretrial or trial-court filings and a state habeas petition with attachments.

The court granted McCray’s requests for several categories of appellate materials that fell within the rule requiring the respondent to provide briefs submitted in appellate proceedings challenging a conviction, sentence, or adverse post-conviction decision. The materials included motions for reconsideration filed in the New York Court of Appeals, a motion to reargue an appeal from resentencing, an appellate brief and reply concerning McCray’s state habeas petition, and applications or notices seeking further review of the state habeas appeal. The court also ordered production of two documents that appeared to be missing from an exhibit: a 233-page documentary account and three newspaper articles.

As to Exhibits A through H referenced in a memorandum filed in the Second Department, the court granted the request only if those exhibits were actually included in the memorandum as filed. Anderson was ordered to ask the Second Department whether the exhibits were on file and, if so, obtain, serve, and file them.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that McCray’s Motion to Strike was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Anderson was ordered to serve and file the specified materials by August 11, 2021, and to report on the inquiry about Exhibits A through H by August 2, 2021. If those exhibits were on file, they were to be served and filed by September 1, 2021. McCray was authorized, but not required, to file a further reply by October 8, 2021. The order addressed service and production of records; it did not decide the underlying petition’s merits.