Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:20-cv-03076
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Murphy v. Warden, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied Murphy’s stay request because he lacked good cause for failing to exhaust a claim in state court.
Donelle Murphy, whose request to pause his federal habeas petition while pursuing an unexhausted state-court claim was denied.
What happened
In Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility, Donelle Murphy asked the court to pause his federal habeas case while he pursued an unexhausted claim in New York state court. The claim concerned whether a treaty could have been used to obtain testimony from the complainant and whether failing to use it violated his speedy-trial rights or amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court said a stay was available only if Murphy showed good cause for not presenting the claim to the state courts first, that the claim might have merit, and that he was not using the stay to delay the case. Murphy said his state filing had been returned because it did not comply with legal procedures. The court ruled that his mistakes and lack of familiarity with the law were not good cause, and it did not decide whether the claim had merit or whether he had used delay tactics.
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein denied Murphy’s application for a stay. The court said Murphy could instead exclude the unexhausted claims, and it indicated that a separate recommendation would address those claims; if Murphy wanted to keep them, he could notify the court, which would then recommend dismissing the entire mixed petition.
The detailed version
- Murphy v. Warden of Attica Correctional Facility · No. 1:20-cv-03076
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Apr. 19, 2022
Background
Donelle Murphy filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging convictions in New York state court for attempted rape in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, and sexual abuse in the first degree. The opinion states that Murphy was proceeding without a lawyer. The state appellate court had previously affirmed the convictions.
The amended federal petition included a claim that the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United States and Japan provided a way to obtain testimony from the complainant. Murphy argued that the trial court’s failure to use that method violated his speedy-trial rights. He also argued that his lawyer was ineffective for not invoking the treaty.
Request for a Stay
Murphy asked the court to stay, or pause, the federal petition so he could present the unexhausted claim in New York state court. Because the petition contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims, the court treated it as a “mixed petition.” Under the governing standard, a stay requires the petitioner to show good cause for failing to exhaust the claim first in state court, that the unexhausted claim is potentially meritorious, and that the petitioner was not engaging in intentionally delaying litigation.
Murphy said he had submitted a state motion but that it had been returned because it did not meet procedural requirements. He later acknowledged that he believed the motion had been properly filed when it had not, because of mistakes on his part.
Court’s Reasoning
The court concluded that Murphy had not shown good cause. It held that mistakes caused by his unfamiliarity with legal procedures were not an external factor that excused his failure to exhaust the claim before filing the federal petition. The court also rejected the argument that Murphy was reasonably confused about whether his state filing would be timely. According to the court, Murphy’s filings showed that he knew he needed to exhaust the claim in state court and sought a stay for that purpose.
Because Murphy failed to establish good cause, the court said it did not need to decide whether the unexhausted claim had merit or whether Murphy had engaged in delaying tactics.
Disposition
The court denied Murphy’s application for a stay. It stated that Murphy could exclude the unexhausted claims rather than have the entire petition dismissed. The court said it was separately issuing a Report and Recommendation concerning those claims. It further stated that, if Murphy preferred to keep the unexhausted claims, he could notify the court, and the court would then recommend dismissing the entire petition as a mixed petition. The opinion itself addresses the stay request and does not decide the merits of the unexhausted claim.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.