Thompson v. Griffin, 1:14-cv-01641

Derrick Thompson, pro se, was convicted in Queens County (May 10, 2010) of burglary and grand larceny and sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to concurrent terms, including 20 years-to-life on burglary.
Thompson filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and sought to amend it to add claims from a coram nobis petition, third and fourth New York § 440.10 motions, and a motion for reconsideration of the Appellate Division decision.
The coram nobis petition was filed while the one-year federal habeas statute of limitations was running and thus tolled the limitations period; other proposed claims were raised after the limitations period expired.
Thompson also requested a stay so he could litigate an unexhausted speedy-trial claim in state court and sought discovery from the Queens County Clerk to support that claim.
The government opposed amendment in part, arguing exhaustion and limitations problems; the Court resolved that Thompson may amend only to add claims that were timely and exhausted (the coram nobis claims), denied amendment as to the other new claims for failing the relation-back test, denied the stay for lack of good cause, and denied discovery for lack of good cause or specificity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to amend to add coram nobis claims	Coram nobis claims tolled the statute and were exhausted; should be added	Respondent did not oppose adding these exhausted coram nobis claims	Granted — coram nobis claims may be included (timely and exhausted)
Motion to amend to add additional § 440.10 / ineffective-assistance / DNA / Confrontation Clause / Frye / speedy-trial claims	These claims should be added despite lapse of limitations	Respondent argued they are untimely and unexhausted and do not relate back	Denied as to these claims — they do not share a common core of operative facts and do not relate back under Mayle/Fama (except coram nobis claims)
Motion to stay to exhaust speedy-trial claim in state court	Seeks stay to pursue unexhausted speedy-trial claim	Respondent argues claim could have been raised earlier; no good cause for failure to exhaust	Denied — no good cause shown under Rhines; claim was readily apparent and could have been raised on direct appeal
Discovery request (documents from Queens County Clerk)	Needs documents to support speedy-trial and due process claims; seeks court intervention to obtain records	Respondent opposed; argued no showing of materiality or proposed discovery plan	Denied — petitioner failed to show good cause or specific proposed interrogatories/documents under Habeas Rule 6 and Harris/Bracy standards

Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (relation-back standard for amended habeas claims)
Fama v. Comm’r of Corr. Servs., 235 F.3d 804 (2d Cir. 2000) (relation-back principles applied in this Circuit)
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (stay-and-abeyance; good-cause requirement to excuse failure to exhaust)
Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286 (court may permit discovery where factual development could demonstrate entitlement to relief)
Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (good-cause showing for discovery requires specific factual allegations)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standard for certificate of appealability)
Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107 (COA standards in the Second Circuit)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (in forma pauperis appeals and good-faith certification)