Ethridge v. Bell
20-1685-pr
2d Cir.Sep 20, 2022Background
- Police stopped Ethridge after a car chase; with his consent to look for a rental agreement officers searched the vehicle and found a gun in the trunk and heroin on his person.
- Ethridge moved to suppress the gun; the state trial court denied suppression (consent included trunk; alternatively, he lacked standing because he abandoned or did not own the rental car).
- Ethridge pleaded guilty reserving suppression issues, appealed, and the New York Appellate Division affirmed; leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied.
- Ethridge filed a pro se §2254 habeas petition alleging the state courts erroneously refused to suppress the gun; the district court sua sponte dismissed the petition under Stone v. Powell, concluding Ethridge had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court, and entered judgment.
- Ethridge moved for reconsideration and argued he lacked a full and fair opportunity (invoking Byrd); the district court denied reconsideration without awaiting the State’s response. Ethridge appealed.
- The Second Circuit held the district court may raise Stone sua sponte but must give advance notice and an opportunity to be heard before dismissing a §2254 petition under Stone; a post-judgment reconsideration motion is not an adequate substitute. The case was vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may dismiss a §2254 petition sua sponte under Stone without giving the petitioner notice and an opportunity to be heard | Ethridge: Stone dismissals require prior notice and an opportunity to present facts showing an exception (e.g., unconscionable breakdown) | State: Court can raise Stone sua sponte and treat dismissal as on the merits (so Rule 4 no-notice dismissal is permissible) | Court: District courts may raise Stone sua sponte but must give the petitioner notice and an opportunity to be heard before dismissing under Stone |
| Whether a post-judgment motion for reconsideration satisfies the required notice and opportunity to be heard | Ethridge: His reconsideration motion preserved and presented the Stone arguments after the dismissal | State: Post-judgment reconsideration was sufficient and dismissal was proper | Court: Reconsideration is not an adequate substitute—notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard must come before dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (habeas relief on Fourth Amendment exclusionary-rule grounds barred where petitioner had full and fair opportunity to litigate claim in state court)
- Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2000) (district court may raise affirmative defenses sua sponte but must give notice before dismissing a habeas petition as untimely)
- Femia v. United States, 47 F.3d 519 (2d Cir. 1995) (similar notice requirement for §2255 petitions; limited instances where sua sponte dismissal is appropriate)
- Lugo v. Keane, 15 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1994) (district court may not dismiss for abuse of the writ without prior notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Graham v. Costello, 299 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2002) (Stone dismissal is “on the merits” for AEDPA’s successive-petition gatekeeping, but that characterization does not waive pre-dismissal notice under Rule 4)
- Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018) (a driver in lawful possession of a rental car not listed on the rental agreement may still have a reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2018) (sua sponte dismissals without notice are bad practice and often reversible error)