Frederics v. Warden Auburn C.F.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 11, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-03968·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NIGEL NOQUAN FREDRICKS, Petitioner, 22-CV-3968 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND WARDEN, Auburn C.F., Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his March 1, 2022 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. By order dated June 10, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court directs Petitioner to file an amended petition within 60 days of the date of this order as detailed below. 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 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 Nigel Fredericks challenges his March 7, 2022 conviction, pursuant to his

guilty plea in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, to charges of assault. (ECF 2 at 1.) According to public records of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Petitioner was convicted of attempted assault in the second degree and attempted strangulation in the second degree and is serving a sentence of four to eight years’ incarceration. Petitioner indicates that on April 1, 2022, he appealed the conviction, raising the argument that he had been denied the right, under N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 30.30, to a speedy trial. (Id. at 2.) In response to a question on the petition form asking the result of his appeal, Petitioner writes “N/A,” and it therefore appears that as yet there has been no decision on Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner also states that he filed a motion “in the Court of Ex Party” in 2021, and that a

hearing was held on Rikers Island. (Id. at 16.) Petitioner’s statement of the grounds for relief that he raised is largely illegible; he refers to the fact that he “was rearrest[ed] while [his] original case for robbery was dismissed . . .” (Id. at 4.) That motion was denied in 2021, after a hearing, and another application that Petitioner filed in 2021, was denied without a hearing. (Id.) Petitioner’s statement of the grounds on which he seeks relief in this Section 2254 petition is also largely illegible. He writes: I am being sentenced to a nonviolent charge after being [illegible] rearrested of a 2-4 to 2-4 nonviolent which show in D.O.C. database and parole gave P.R.S. almost three years and a half upon release but since I done a flat bid in the past DOC I.R.C. calculated my time as a violent 15 falsely. (Id. at 5.) The Court understands Petitioner to be challenging the calculation of his sentence but the grounds for his challenge are unclear. Petitioner indicates that he did not raise on direct appeal the grounds for relief asserted in this petition, because this involved “two separate different occasions Direct Appeal 30.30 rights petition jurisdiction time computation.” (Id. at 6.)

Petitioner filed several petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the same criminal proceeding before judgment was entered; these petitions were dismissed without prejudice. See Fredricks v. V.C.B.C., No. 21-CV-8586 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2022) (dismissed without prejudice for failure to file a second amended petition as directed);1 Fredricks v. Mills, No. 21-CV-3690 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2021) (dismissing amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S. § 2241 on the ground that the “amended petition neither clearly articulates the grounds on which he seeks relief nor pleads facts showing that he has fully exhausted his state court remedies.”). DISCUSSION I. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases A state prisoner 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.

1 This petition was originally filed as an amended petition in the case under docket number 21-CV-8586 (LTS). Because that action was closed, the Court directed that this petition be opened as a new action. This Petition does not conform to the requirements of Rule 2(c). Petitioner fails to specify plainly and legibly his grounds for relief and the supporting facts. Mindful of the Court’s duty to construe pro se actions liberally, see Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), the Court has analyzed Petitioner’s submission and finds that neither the Court nor a respondent could discern the constitutional basis for the petition.2 The Court therefore grants Petitioner leave to amend his

petition to clarify the grounds on which he seeks relief. II. Exhaustion of State Court Remedies A state prisoner must exhaust all available state remedies before filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2254. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); see Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). This exhaustion doctrine means that the state courts must be given the first opportunity to review constitutional errors associated with Petitioner’s confinement. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844-45 (1999). A petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting his claims through a complete round of the state’s established appellate review process. Id. “A petitioner has ‘fairly presented’ his claim only if he has ‘informed the state court of both the factual and legal premises of the claim he asserts in federal court.’” Dorsey v. Kelly,

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

Frederics v. Warden Auburn C.F., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Frederics v. Warden Auburn C.F. (Frederics v. Warden Auburn C.F.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related