Campbell v. Morton

E.D. New York

Campbell v. Morton

DecidedAugust 22, 2023

Docket2:19-cv-02448

StatusUnknown

This text of Campbell v. Morton (Campbell v. Morton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Campbell v. Morton, (E.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK For Online Publication Only ----------------------------------------------------------------X SANDINO CAMPBELL,

Petitioner,

-against- ORDER 19-CV-2448 (JMA) DOWNSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

Respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------X AZRACK, United States District Judge: On April 20, 2023, Petitioner Sandino Campbell filed a letter stating that he was submitting a CPL § 440.10 motion and asked that his habeas corpus petition be held in abeyance until he exhausts this new claim. Petitioner’s letter also states that “I need 60 days to provide you with the proper notification that such motion is being filed.” Since his April 20, 2023 letter, Petitioner has not filed anything further with the Court. “[S]tay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances” so as not to undermine the “twin purposes” of the federal habeas statute: “encouraging finality” and “streamlining federal habeas proceedings.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). “Courts may stay a habeas petition to allow for exhaustion of claims in state court if the petitioner can demonstrate that: (1) good cause exists for failing to exhaust the claims previously, (2) the claims are potentially meritorious, and (3) the petitioner did not intentionally engage in dilatory litigation tactics.” Perkins v. LaValley, No. 11-CV-3855, 2012 WL 1948773, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2012) (citing Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277–78). Petitioner’s April 20, 2023 letter provides no detail about the new claim he intends to raise and does not address the relevant factors cited above. Petitioner is directed to show cause, in writing, by September 20, 2023 why the Court should grant his request for a stay and abeyance. If Petitioner fails to file a response by September 20, 2023, the Court will deny his request for a stay based on his April 20, 2023 filing. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 22, 2023 Central Islip, New York

/s/ (JMA) JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK For Online Publication Only ----------------------------------------------------------------X SANDINO CAMPBELL,

Petitioner,

-against- ORDER 19-CV-2448 (JMA) DOWNSTATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

Respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------X AZRACK, United States District Judge: On April 20, 2023, Petitioner Sandino Campbell filed a letter stating that he was submitting a CPL § 440.10 motion and asked that his habeas corpus petition be held in abeyance until he exhausts this new claim. Petitioner’s letter also states that “I need 60 days to provide you with the proper notification that such motion is being filed.” Since his April 20, 2023 letter, Petitioner has not filed anything further with the Court. “[S]tay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances” so as not to undermine the “twin purposes” of the federal habeas statute: “encouraging finality” and “streamlining federal habeas proceedings.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). “Courts may stay a habeas petition to allow for exhaustion of claims in state court if the petitioner can demonstrate that: (1) good cause exists for failing to exhaust the claims previously, (2) the claims are potentially meritorious, and (3) the petitioner did not intentionally engage in dilatory litigation tactics.” Perkins v. LaValley, No. 11-CV-3855, 2012 WL 1948773, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2012) (citing Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277–78). Petitioner’s April 20, 2023 letter provides no detail about the new claim he intends to raise and does not address the relevant factors cited above. Petitioner is directed to show cause, in writing, by September 20, 2023 why the Court should grant his request for a stay and abeyance. If Petitioner fails to file a response by September 20, 2023, the Court will deny his request for a stay based on his April 20, 2023 filing. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 22, 2023 Central Islip, New York

/s/ (JMA) JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Campbell v. Morton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-morton-nyed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack