Clark v. The State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 19, 2022·No. 7:22-cv-06635·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ERIC WADE CLARK, Petitioner, -against- 22-CV-6635 (LTS) THE STATE OF NEW YORK; NYS OFFICE OF ORDER TO AMEND MENTAL HEALTH; NYS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Respondents. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner Eric Wade Clark, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking to be discharged from sex offender civil management under Article 10 of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law (MHL), or in the alternative, the termination of his present supervision under Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment (SIST).1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court directs Petitioner to file an amended petition within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on “behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has the authority to review and dismiss a § 2254 petition without ordering a responsive pleading from the state, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the

1 Petitioner has paid the filing fee for this action. district court.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4; see Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them “to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d

471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original); see Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is not exempt “from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Triestman, 470 F.3d at 477 (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). BACKGROUND Petitioner did not submit a petition specifying his grounds for relief. Rather, he submitted a type-written appeal brief captioned for the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, on which he crossed off the state-court’s name and handwrote this court’s name and referenced a habeas corpus action that he previously had pending in this court before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.2 (See ECF 1.) Petitioner also attached to the appeal brief documents from his state-court proceedings before the Westchester County Supreme Court and his appeal to

the Appellate Division, Second Department. (Id.) He subsequently submitted hundreds of pages of supporting documents from his state-court proceedings and his prior habeas action in this court. (ECF 3, 4.) The following information is taken from Petitioner’s appeal brief and attachments and the documents submitted in support of his habeas petition. On April 22, 1985, Petitioner pleaded

2 In 2011, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his 2007 parole revocation. On March 31, 2015, Judge Karas adopted in its entirety Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith’s Report and Recommendation, recommending that the court dismiss Petitioner’s petition as moot. Clark v. Walsh, ECF 7:11-CV- 0044, 35, 2015 WL 1501457 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015). guilty to rape in the first degree and kidnapping in the second degree in the Westchester County Supreme Court, and on May 17, 1985, he was sentenced to indeterminate terms of eight and one- third to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. (ECF 1, at 37.) In 2003, Petitioner was released on discretionary parole but, in 2007, his parole was revoked and he was re-incarcerated under the

custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) until his conditional release on August 30, 2012. (Id. at 38.) Before Petitioner’s release from DOCCS’s custody, Respondents filed a sex offender civil management petition in the Wyoming County Supreme Court, pursuant to MHL § 10.06(a). On July 26, 2016, the Westchester County Supreme Court found that Petitioner was a sex offender who suffered a “mental abnormality” and “is likely to be a danger to others and to commit sex offenses if not confined to a secure treatment facility for care, treatment and control” under MHL § 10.07(f). (Id. at 39.) However, in May 2019, the Oneida County Supreme Court discharged Petitioner from confinement and released him under SIST to the supervision of the New York Division of Parole. (Id. at 41, 46.)

In March 2021, Petitioner filed a petition in the Westchester County Supreme Court seeking immediate discharge from civil management, or alternatively, the termination of SIST. (Id. at 37, 46.) He also sought the admission of a February 2020 polygraph test to retroactively challenge his 2007 parole revocation. (Id. at 37.) On June 15, 2021, the state court denied Petitioner’s requests for immediate discharge from civil management and the admission of the polygraph test, but the court directed the Respondents to prepare and submit an updated report concerning “[P]etitioner’s conduct while subject to his current SIST regimen.” (Id. at 45.) The state court further directed that Petitioner would continue his SIST regimen without modifications until the court made a decision. (Id.) On October 12, 2021, the Westchester Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s request to terminate SIST, finding that he continues to suffer from a mental abnormality and requires civil management. (Id. at 47.) Petitioner appealed the Westchester County Supreme Court’s decisions to the Appellate Division, Second Department, which dismissed the appeal, finding that the July 15, 2021, order

was not appealable as of right, and denying Petitioner leave to appeal. (See ECF 3, at 2, 105; ECF 3-1, at 60-72.) Petitioner then filed a motion for reargument, which the Appellate Division denied. (ECF 3, at 3.) DISCUSSION A. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases An individual who is incarcerated or restrained under a state court judgment of conviction and seeks to challenge that conviction must submit a petition that conforms to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 2(c) requires a petition to specify all of a petitioner’s available grounds for relief, setting forth the facts supporting each of the specified grounds and stating the relief requested. A petition must permit the Court and the respondent to comprehend both the petitioner’s grounds for relief and the underlying facts and legal theory supporting each

ground so that the issues presented in the petition may be adjudicated. Petitioner’s submission does not conform to the requirements of Rule 2(c) because he does not clearly specify his grounds for relief and the supporting facts. He submitted as his Section 2254 petition his state-court appeal brief, along with hundreds of pages of documents in support of his claims, including papers from his criminal case and prior habeas corpus proceedings in this court. Petitioner’s cache of documents appears to have been submitted without any discernment as to their relevancy and contains many duplicates of the same papers.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clark v. The State of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Clark v. The State of New York (Clark v. The State of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Rose v. Lundy
455 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 1982)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Acosta v. Artuz
221 F.3d 117 (Second Circuit, 2000)