Figueroa v. Keyser

Background

William Figueroa filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking release from custody because of the COVID-19 pandemic. He was serving a sentence for second-degree murder, first-degree reckless endangerment, and weapons-possession offenses. He asserted that his age and medical conditions, together with conditions at Sullivan Correctional Facility, placed him at heightened risk of serious complications from COVID-19. He argued that those conditions violated the Eighth Amendment.

The State opposed the petition on two grounds. First, it argued that a challenge to conditions of confinement should be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 rather than through habeas corpus. Second, it argued that the state courts had reasonably rejected Figueroa’s Eighth Amendment claim.

The court had previously stayed the case so Figueroa could complete the required state-court review. He filed a state habeas petition raising similar COVID-19-related claims. The state trial court denied it, the Appellate Division denied his appeal on the merits, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. The federal court therefore found that Figueroa had exhausted his state remedies.

Court’s analysis of the COVID-19 claim

The court declined to dismiss the petition solely on the ground that the claim belonged in a § 1983 action. It explained that the law was unsettled in the Second Circuit concerning whether habeas relief could be available for a conditions-of-confinement claim when the prisoner sought release or transfer. The court reserved that issue and relied instead on the merits of the constitutional claim.

Under the federal habeas statute, a federal court may grant relief from a state-court decision on the merits only when the state court’s decision contradicts clearly established Supreme Court law, unreasonably applies that law, or rests on an unreasonable factual determination. The court also explained that a state court’s factual findings are presumed correct unless the petitioner rebuts them with clear and convincing evidence.

For an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim, the petitioner must establish both an objectively serious risk and that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference—that is, that they knowingly disregarded the risk in a manner comparable to criminal recklessness. The state Appellate Division concluded that Figueroa had not shown the required deliberate indifference, even assuming he could establish an objectively serious COVID-19 risk.

The federal court held that this decision reasonably applied the governing Eighth Amendment standard. The state court had considered the State’s evidence about protocols and preparedness measures, as well as Figueroa’s submissions about difficulties maintaining social distancing and obtaining or using protective equipment. The federal court concluded that Figueroa’s disagreement with the state court’s factual findings did not overcome the presumption that those findings were correct. It therefore deferred to the state courts’ resolution of the Eighth Amendment claim.

Later challenges to the conviction and discovery

After filing the COVID-19 petition, Figueroa submitted materials challenging his underlying conviction and seeking discovery concerning allegedly undisclosed evidence. The court explained that a challenge to the same conviction and sentence after an earlier federal habeas petition is generally a second or successive petition. Under the governing statute, the federal appeals court—not the district court—must authorize such a petition before the district court can consider it. The court stated that Figueroa would need to seek permission from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to pursue a challenge to his conviction.

The court also denied the basis for discovery because Figueroa had not shown good cause. His discovery request concerned evidence allegedly withheld before his trial and was directed at challenging his conviction, not at establishing entitlement to relief on the COVID-19 conditions-of-confinement petition.

Disposition

The court denied the petition without prejudice to Figueroa’s ability to seek permission from the Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition challenging his underlying conviction. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions, and closed the case.