Jackson v. Capra
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-03357
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jackson v. Capra, Magistrate Judge Netburn denied further stay of the habeas case because Jackson had not shown good cause for delayed exhaustion.
Raphael Jackson’s federal petition will proceed without another pause; Michael Capra must respond to the second amended petition by January 29, 2024.
What happened
In Jackson v. Capra, the court had previously denied Jackson’s request to pause the case and allowed him to file a second amended petition containing all grounds he wished to pursue, including claims not yet presented to state courts.
After Capra submitted a letter opposing another pause, the court decided that Jackson had not shown a sufficient reason for failing to complete his state-court remedies earlier. The court also found that he had not shown that the basis for his separate application to correct the earlier criminal judgment was plainly valid enough to justify delaying the case.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn denied Jackson’s request for a further stay. Capra must respond to the second amended petition by January 29, 2024, and Jackson may file a reply by February 29, 2024.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Capra · No. 1:22-cv-03357
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 27, 2023
Background
Jackson is pursuing a petition asking the federal court to review his custody. On October 6, 2023, the court denied his request to pause the case while he pursued additional state-court proceedings, but allowed him to file a second amended petition raising every ground he wanted to pursue, including any claims not yet presented to the state courts. The court then directed Capra to state his position on Jackson’s request for a pause and temporary suspension of the case. Capra filed that letter on November 17, 2023.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on the reasons in Capra’s letter and reaffirmed its earlier decision denying a further stay. Under the standard discussed in Rhines v. Weber, a petitioner seeking this type of stay must show good cause for failing to complete state-court review earlier and must show that the basis for the additional state-court application is not plainly meritless. The court concluded that Jackson had shown neither. The opinion states that Jackson remained free to pursue his application asking the state court to correct the earlier judgment, but the federal court would not delay consideration of the second amended petition.
Disposition
The court denied Jackson’s request for a further stay. It ordered Capra to file and serve an answer, motion, or other response to the second amended petition by January 29, 2024. Jackson may file a reply brief by February 29, 2024. This order addressed whether to pause the case and did not decide the underlying claims in the second amended petition.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on a request to pause the case without deciding the merits of Jackson’s petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.