Martinez v. Miller
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-01281
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Martinez v. Miller, Judge Liman requested responses to Omar Martinez’s request to pause his federal petition while he exhausts state remedies.
Omar Martinez’s federal petition and Superintendent Mark T. Miller’s obligations to respond and provide specified materials were affected; the court had not yet decided whether to stay or dismiss the petition.
What happened
In Martinez v. Miller, Omar Martinez, representing himself, asked for an opportunity to pursue his state remedies before resubmitting his federal petition. The court interpreted his letter as a request to stay, or temporarily pause, the case while he completes that process.
The court ordered Superintendent Mark T. Miller to respond by April 28, 2023, addressing whether the case should be stayed rather than dismissed, how much time remained under the applicable one-year filing deadline, and whether that deadline was currently paused. Martinez could reply by May 31, 2023.
While considering the stay request, Judge Lewis J. Liman temporarily relieved the superintendent from filing an answer or other response to the petition and from providing specified transcripts and briefs. The order did not decide whether the petition should be stayed or whether Martinez should win on his claims.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Miller · No. 1:23-cv-01281
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 30, 2023
Background
Omar Martinez, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a letter asking for the opportunity to exhaust his state remedies before resubmitting his federal petition. The court interpreted the letter as a request to stay the federal action while Martinez pursued those state remedies. The order refers to the petition as a mixed petition, meaning it contains claims for which state-court remedies may not yet have been completed alongside other claims.
Court’s directives
The court directed Superintendent Mark T. Miller to respond by April 28, 2023. The response must address whether the court should stay the action instead of dismissing it, how much time remained under the one-year filing deadline imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and whether that deadline was currently paused. Martinez was directed to file any reply by May 31, 2023.
Interim relief from filing obligations
Until the court decided whether to stay the action, the superintendent was relieved from filing and serving an answer, motion, or other response to the petition. He was also relieved from providing the transcripts and briefs identified in Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as required by an earlier order.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny the requested stay, dismiss the petition, or decide the merits of Martinez’s claims. It instead set a briefing schedule and temporarily suspended the respondent’s filing obligations while Judge Lewis J. Liman considered the stay request.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.