Kovalsky v. Lilley
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-00602
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Kovalsky v. Lilley, Judge Krause denied Andrew Kovalsky’s request to obtain medical records for his federal habeas case.
Andrew Kovalsky, who sought permission to obtain medical records for use in supporting his federal habeas claims.
What happened
In Kovalsky v. Lilley, Andrew Kovalsky asked the federal court for medical records concerning his children. He argued the records might support his claim that his trial lawyer was ineffective for failing to investigate the children’s injuries before Kovalsky pleaded guilty.
The court found that Kovalsky had not shown a sufficient reason to allow discovery in his habeas case. It said he was seeking the records to explore defense strategies after the fact, and that federal law generally limits review of state-court decisions to the evidence that was before the state court.
Judge Andrew E. Krause denied Kovalsky’s letter motion for permission to conduct discovery and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion. The opinion did not decide the underlying habeas claims in this order.
The detailed version
- Kovalsky v. Lilley · No. 7:21-cv-00602
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 21, 2021
Background
Andrew Kovalsky, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition asking for federal review of his 2013 state-court conviction after he pleaded guilty to three counts of assault in the second degree. His petition raised five grounds, including claims that the trial court mishandled requests to replace his lawyer, that his appeal waiver was invalid, that appellate counsel was ineffective, and that trial counsel failed to investigate and gave him incorrect advice about pleading guilty.
Kovalsky later moved for permission to obtain copies of pediatric medical records concerning his children from February 7, 2012, through March 11, 2012. He argued that the records could show that earlier examinations did not indicate injury or trauma and could contradict hospital evidence suggesting healed injuries. He asserted that he would not have pleaded guilty if his lawyer had subpoenaed the records and hired an expert to review them.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a person seeking federal review of a state conviction is not automatically entitled to discovery. Under Rule 6 governing federal cases challenging state convictions, discovery may be authorized for good cause. Good cause requires specific allegations showing reason to believe that developing the facts could establish entitlement to relief.
The court held that Kovalsky had not met that burden. It characterized his request as an effort to determine after the fact whether the records might have supported an alternative defense strategy. The court also relied on the rule that, when a state court has decided a claim on its merits, federal review is generally limited to the record that was before the state court. The opinion concluded that the requested records could not be considered in reviewing Kovalsky’s claims under either the federal-law or factual-error standards identified in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Disposition
The court denied Kovalsky’s letter motion for leave to conduct discovery and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 17. This order addressed discovery; it did not rule on the merits of the underlying habeas petition.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.