Aurecchione v. James

Background

On April 23, 2022, Philip S. Aurecchione filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a) and 2252(a). He challenged his arrest by Rockland County Sheriff’s Deputies and his parole supervision by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

Aurecchione’s parole supervision ended on May 11, 2022. The respondents then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the petition had become moot. Aurecchione did not oppose that motion. Instead, he filed a cross-motion for attorney’s fees under the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave recommended granting the motion to dismiss, dismissing the habeas petition as moot, and denying the request for attorney’s fees. She concluded that the expiration of Aurecchione’s parole supervision mooted the petition. She also concluded that fees were not warranted because no federal statute authorized a federal district court to award fees in a state-custody habeas action, Aurecchione was not a prevailing party under the New York statute, and the respondents’ position in the litigation was substantially justified.

The parties were given fourteen days to object to the recommendation, but no objections were filed. The court stated that the parties therefore waived their right to object to the recommendation or obtain appellate review. Despite that waiver, the court conducted a de novo review, meaning an independent review, and found the recommendation well reasoned and well founded.

Ruling

Judge John P. Cronan adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, dismissed Aurecchione’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as moot, and denied Aurecchione’s cross-motion for attorney’s fees. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment, close the pending motions, and close the case.