Babyrev v. Belfi

Background

Vadim Babyrev was adjudicated not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect for second-degree murder in New York State Supreme Court in 2001. He was committed under New York Criminal Procedure Law section 330.20 and had been held at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, a maximum-security psychiatric facility, since January 2015.

New York law provides for time-limited retention orders supported by judicial findings that a person has a dangerous mental disorder or is mentally ill. Babyrev timely sought jury rehearing and review of retention orders issued in 2016 and 2017, but those proceedings did not occur. He attributed the delays at least partly to repeated adjournment requests by his attorneys, which he said occurred without his knowledge or consent.

Babyrev later filed a state-court proceeding, but he did not complete the appeal. He then filed this federal petition under 28 U.S.C. section 2254, a procedure for challenging state custody on federal-law grounds. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, due-process violations, that section 330.20 was unconstitutionally vague, and that restrictions at the facility interfered with his ability to access the courts and exhaust his state remedies. He sought release, transfer to a non-secure facility, or withdrawal of his plea.

Babyrev also filed a supplemental pleading about conditions at the facility during the COVID-19 pandemic. With the parties’ consent, the court treated that pleading as a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, a statute allowing lawsuits for violations of federal rights by state actors.

Habeas petition

The court held that Babyrev had not exhausted his state-court remedies. It considered whether facility restrictions excused that failure. Babyrev pointed to restrictions on pens and other writing tools, occasional lack of access to LEXIS, and the alleged absence of notarial services.

The court concluded that Babyrev had not shown a connection between those restrictions and his failure to complete the state appeal. It emphasized that he had filed at least nine handwritten documents in federal court during the relevant period, and that the specific pen restrictions described in the record appeared to have occurred before the state appeal was pending. The court also found that Babyrev did not explain how lack of LEXIS access prevented state-court filings, and that notarial services were not required for the relevant New York appellate briefs. Because he had not shown that the restrictions prevented exhaustion, the court did not address his constitutional arguments concerning those restrictions.

Section 1983 COVID-19 claim

The court analyzed Babyrev’s COVID-19 allegations under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because he had been adjudicated not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect rather than convicted of a crime. It explained that a failure-to-protect claim requires facts showing both a substantial risk of serious harm and that officials intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, of an excessive risk.

The court also explained that an official sued individually must be connected to the alleged violation through that official’s own conduct. A person cannot be held liable merely because of a supervisory position.

The court found that the supplemental pleading did not satisfy these requirements. It alleged a lack of social distancing and generally attributed responsibility to the facility’s administration, but did not specifically allege actions by Commissioner Sullivan. It mentioned Director Belfi only as part of the facility’s administration and did not provide specific facts showing his personal involvement. The pleading also did not state what relief Babyrev sought.

Disposition

The court granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss the habeas petition. It also granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss the supplemental Section 1983 claims. However, because Babyrev might be able to state a valid claim by adding facts, the court granted him leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to identify the defendants, provide facts supporting the COVID-19 deliberate-indifference claims, and state the relief requested. The court warned that the action could be dismissed in its entirety if the amended complaint was not timely filed.