Abrahams v. Commissioner of Corrections

3 Citing cases

  1. Abrams v. Comm'r of Corr.

    Case No. 3:17cv1732(MPS) (D. Conn. Feb. 25, 2019)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing that a petitioner can use an ineffective assistance of habeas counsel claim as a “vehicle to exhaust his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel”

    See id. To the extent that this contention constitutes an argument that the petitioner procedurally defaulted the sub-claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel raised on appeal from the fourth state habeas petition, the court declines to reach it at this time as there are multiple, other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that are unexhausted and could still be exhausted in state court. See Abrahams v. Comm'r of Corr., No. 3:10CV519(MRK), 2010 WL 5093113, at *7 (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2010) (declining to reach argument that one claim had been procedurally defaulted because respondent had recommended that the court dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice to permit the petitioner to exhaust his state court remedies as to other unexhausted claims and a determination that one claim in the petition had been procedurally defaulted would constitute a decision on the merits that "could render any future federal habeas application filed by Mr. Abrahams a second or subsequent habeas application") (citing Turner v. Artuz, 262 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2001)). 3.

  2. Schiavo v. Erfe

    No. 3:17-cv-2108 (VAB) (D. Conn. Jun. 21, 2018)

    This approach provides the same protection as an order staying the petition and ensures that the new petition will not be procedurally barred. Id.; see also Abrahams v. Comm'r of Corr., No. 3:10-cv-519 (MRK), 2010 WL 5093113, at *5 (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2010) (dismissing mixed petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust is not adjudication on merits that renders subsequent petition successive). III. DISCUSSION

  3. Anthoulis v. New York

    11 Civ. 1908 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2012)   Cited 21 times

    This would give petitioner the opportunity to exhaust the unexhausted portion of his ineffective assistance claim and then re-file a § 2254 petition raising all of his claims. See Sookoo v. Heath, No. 09 Civ. 9820, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43960, at *18-19 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2011); Abrahams v. Comm'r of Corr., No. 10 Civ. 519, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128897, at *21 (D. Conn. Dec. 7, 2010). Second, if I determine that petitioner's unexhausted claim is "plainly meritless," I can deny it on the merits and rule on petitioner's remaining exhausted claims.