Murphy v. O'Brien

Filing 64

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING 59 Report and Recommendation; DENYING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (28:2254); DENYING Certificate of Appealability.(DaSilva, Carolina)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CONRAD MURPHY,

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Petitioner,
v.
STEVEN O’BRIEN,
Respondent.

Civil Action No. 15-cv-11130-IT

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
July 12, 2017
TALWANI, D.J.
Currently pending before this court is Petitioner Conrad Murphy’s writ of habeas corpus
petition alleging that his state civil commitment violated his Constitutional rights in several
respects. Pet. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Person in State Custody
(“Pet.”) [#1]. The Magistrate Judge to whom the matter was referred recommended that the
Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Report & Recommendation Re: Resp.’s Mem. Law Opp’n
Pet. for Habeas Corpus (“R&R”) [#59]. Petitioner filed timely objections. Obj. Magistrate J.’s
Findings & Recommendations (“Obj. R&R”) [#61]. Having considered Petitioner’s objections
and reviewed the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation [#59] de novo, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and provides
the following discussion as to the objections raised by Petitioner.
I.

Request for Evidentiary Hearing
Petitioner’s objections included no disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s

determination that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted. See R&R 3-5 [#59].

II.

Procedural Background & Factual Background
Petitioner’s objections included no disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s statements

of procedural and factual background. See R&R 5-21 [#59].
III.

Discussion
Petitioner has raised two objections to the Report and Recommendation [#59]. First, he

argues that the Massachusetts state courts did not decide on the merits his claim that the
conditions attached to his request for expert funds were unconstitutional. Obj. R&R 1-4 [#61].
Second, he asserts that the Magistrate Judge erred in failing to grant a Certificate of
Appealability. Id. at 4-5.
A. Massachusetts State Courts’ Consideration of Petitioner’s Claim on the Merits
A state court is presumed to have adjudicated a federal claim on the merits when that
claim “has been presented to a state court and the state court has denied relief,” and there is no
“indication or state-law procedural principles to the contrary.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S.
86, 99 (2011). A petitioner may overcome this presumption by a showing that “there is reason to
think some other explanation for the state court’s decision is more likely.” Id. at 99-100. Merely
pointing to a state court’s failure to give reasons for its decision is insufficient. Id. at 100 (stating
that a state court is not required “to give reasons before its decision can be deemed to have been
adjudicated on the merits”).
Petitioner asserts that the state courts did not decide on the merits his claim regarding the
constitutionality of the conditions attached to his request for expert funds. Obj. R&R 1-4 [#61].
He argues that the Magistrate Judge did not properly take into account the fact that although the
state trial court transcripts indicate that he raised an issue regarding the constitutionality of the
conditions attached to his request for expert funds, the state courts’ resulting decisions did not
mention that issue, and therefore did not decide it on the merits. Id.
2

To the extent Petitioner’s objection can be construed as an argument that his claim
regarding the constitutionality of the conditions attached to his request for expert funds is not
procedurally defaulted, the objection is misplaced. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the
procedural default doctrine does not apply to that claim.1 R&R 24-26 [#59].
To the extent Petitioner’s objection can be construed as an argument that his claim
regarding the constitutionality of the conditions attached to his request for expert funds was not
decided on the merits, the Magistrate Judge parsed through the state court record to determine
whether the Massachusetts state courts did or did not consider his claim on the merits. For
example, the Magistrate Judge pointed to the portion of the Massachusetts Appeals Court
decision referencing one facet of Petitioner’s federal constitutional claim, and stating that the
claim was denied for the reasons set forth in a brief submitted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. R&R 28 [#59]. The Magistrate Judge further noted that the portion of the
Commonwealth’s brief cited by the Massachusetts Appeals Court also referenced Petitioner’s
federal constitutional claim. Id. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge explained that Petitioner’s
application for further appellate review (“ALOFAR”) to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court “squarely and undeniably in the statement of points subject to review and the body of the
brief presented” another facet of his federal constitutional claim, and the mere fact that the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court summarily denied Petitioner’s ALOFAR is insufficient to
rebut the Richter presumption. Id. at 32-33. Moreover, no state court stated that “it was denying
the claim for any other reason.” Richter, 562 U.S. at 99. Without more, the Magistrate Judge

1

The Magistrate Judge did consider whether Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
as presented to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, was procedurally defaulted, but concluded that
it was not necessary to decide the issue “because petitioner presents a different federal
ineffective assistance of counsel claim to this court.” R&R 30 [#59].
3

correctly concluded that Petitioner has not rebutted the presumption that the Massachusetts state
courts decided his claim on the merits.
B. Certificate of Appealability
Petitioner also asserts that the Report and Recommendation [#59] is objectionable for its
failure to grant a Certificate of Appealability. But whether to grant a Certificate of Appealability
is within the purview of the district court judge. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule
11(a) (“The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final
order adverse to the applicant.”). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), “[a] certificate of
appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” To make the required “substantial showing,” a petitioner must
demonstrate that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000). And in turn, to meet this standard, the petitioner must prove “something more than the
absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
338 (2003) (internal quotations omitted).
The Report and Recommendation [#59] juxtaposes Petitioner’s claim squarely within the
clearly established Federal law governing Petitioner’s claim, and the resulting, robust analysis
provides no room for debate among reasonable jurists whether “the petition should have been
resolved” differently or that the issues presented deserved further encouragement. Thus,
Petitioner has not made the requisite “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,”
and the Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, after consideration of Petitioner’s objections, the court ADOPTS the Report
4

and Recommendation [#59], and Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [#1] is DENIED. Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court hereby DENIES a Certificate of
Appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: July 12, 2017

/s/ Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

5