Layman v. Sheriff, Orange County NY

Background

Mark Marvin filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal law allowing a person to challenge state-court custody, seeking to act as a non-attorney on behalf of Nicole Layman. The opinion states that Layman pleaded guilty on December 10, 2021, to certain charges in Orange County Court case number 00062-2020. She was detained at Orange County Jail awaiting sentencing, which was scheduled for February 28, 2022.

On January 14, 2022, the court dismissed the petition without prejudice because Marvin had not shown that he had standing to bring it on Layman’s behalf. On February 1, 2022, Marvin filed a motion to vacate that dismissal. The court treated the filing as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and, alternatively, a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b).

Arguments and analysis

Marvin argued that Layman was “unlettered” in law, considered him her “best friend,” and had a defense attorney whom he described as acting only as a court adviser and as ineffective. He also argued that the attorney persuaded Layman to plead guilty even though Layman was not guilty. The court held that these assertions did not show that it had overlooked controlling legal authority or factual matters previously presented to it. The court also concluded that Marvin had not met his burden to show that he should be allowed to proceed as a non-attorney on Layman’s behalf.

The court therefore denied Marvin’s motion under Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. It separately held that Marvin had not shown that any of the first five grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)—including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, or satisfaction or changed circumstances—applied. The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief for another reason justifying it, because Marvin had not shown extraordinary circumstances.

Disposition

The court denied Marvin’s motion for reconsideration of the January 14, 2022 order of dismissal. It directed the clerk to mail the order to Marvin and Layman and record service on the docket. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. This order addressed whether the earlier dismissal should be reconsidered; it did not decide the underlying custody-related issues on the merits.