Emily Vega v. Eric T. Schneiderman
861 F.3d 72
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Emily Vega was convicted in New York state court of attempted criminal contempt (misdemeanor) and harassment (violation) after confronting the victim, Magdalena Camacho, despite an existing order of protection.
- Vega received a one-year conditional discharge conditioned on abiding by a two-year order of protection prohibiting contact with Camacho.
- Vega filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition after exhausting state remedies, claiming a Sixth Amendment violation when her counsel was denied the opportunity to make a closing argument.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the § 2254 custody requirement unmet; the district judge dismissed the petition as moot for lack of demonstrated non-speculative collateral consequences.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit considered whether the order of protection (and conditional discharge) placed Vega “in custody” for § 2254 purposes and concluded it did not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vega was "in custody" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when she filed her petition | The conditional discharge plus two-year order of protection significantly restrained Vega’s liberty, satisfying § 2254 custody | The order of protection imposed only a narrow, non-severe restriction (stay-away) and speculative risk of future sanction, so § 2254 custody is lacking | The order of protection did not place Vega "in custody"; § 2254 jurisdiction was not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853 (1975) (Sixth Amendment ineffective-assistance principles cited)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989) (habeas jurisdiction requires petitioner be in custody under state judgment)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (custody may include restraints short of physical incarceration)
- Hensley v. Mun. Ct., San Jose Milpitas Jud. Dist., 411 U.S. 345 (1973) (habeas reserved for severe restraints on liberty)
- Poodry v. Towanda Band of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874 (2d Cir. 1996) (focus on severity of restraint for custody analysis)
- Nowakowski v. New York, 835 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2016) (one-year conditional discharge requiring physical presence for community service satisfied § 2254 custody)
- Kaminski v. U.S., 339 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2003) (monetary restitution orders do not satisfy custody requirement)
- Ginsberg v. Abrams, 702 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1983) (professional sanctions did not constitute custody)
- Dremann v. Frances, 828 F.2d 6 (2d Cir. 1987) (speculative restraints do not satisfy custody requirement)