Lucas v. Commissioner of Office of Mental Health

Background

Troy Lucas, who was a patient at Manhattan Psychiatric Center, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law that allows a person in state custody to challenge custody based on a state-court judgment. Lucas was representing himself. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Lucas used a form designed to challenge a state conviction. He identified an assisted-outpatient-treatment proceeding, rather than a criminal conviction, and described his sentence as six months of medication compliance that could extend for a year each time. His stated grounds included an order to show cause, medication compliance, and getting off medication. The form did not clearly state the relief he wanted.

Lucas attached a January 2020 order from the New York Supreme Court directing him to receive assisted outpatient treatment for one year under section 9.60 of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law. That order found that he met the requirements for assisted outpatient treatment and that the treatment was the least restrictive appropriate and feasible option. It also stated that refusal to take court-ordered medication could lead to further evaluation or transport to a hospital.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that federal habeas relief is available only to a person who is in custody under a state-court judgment and alleges that the custody violates the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. Under the rule governing section 2254 petitions, a court may review and deny a petition without requiring a response from the state when the petition plainly shows that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.

Although the court was required to read Lucas’s self-represented filing liberally, it found that he did not identify the conviction he was challenging, provide grounds establishing entitlement to habeas relief, or state facts showing that he was in custody because of a conviction. The court interpreted the filing as challenging the assisted-outpatient-treatment order instead.

The court therefore concluded that Lucas had not alleged custody in violation of federal law. It noted that a challenge to the constitutionality of his placement in assisted outpatient treatment or to the program’s requirements could be brought in a new civil action, but those allegations did not support this section 2254 petition.

Disposition

The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Lucas had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.