Garland v. Warden, Fishkill Correctional Facility

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 24, 2022
Docket1:22-cv-08712
StatusUnknown

This text of Garland v. Warden, Fishkill Correctional Facility (Garland v. Warden, Fishkill Correctional Facility) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Garland v. Warden, Fishkill Correctional Facility, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TAMARKQUA GARLAND, Plaintiff, 22-CV-8712 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND JUSTICE JOHN CARTER; MICHAEL J. SCHORDINE, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks to overturn his conviction and recover damages for both his allegedly wrongful imprisonment and for incidents that took place in prison in 2014 and 2015. By order dated October 18, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file amended pleadings within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

1 In a civil rights action, prisoners are not exempt from paying the full $350.00 filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is not charged the $350.00 filing fee for this action because the Court construes this matter as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The $5.00 filing fee for a habeas petition is waived for prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis. immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). BACKGROUND On May 23, 2022, Plaintiff Tamarkqua Garland gave this complaint to prison officials for

mailing to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which transferred it here. In the complaint, Plaintiff attacks his 2015 conviction, seeking to overturn it, and asserts civil rights claims arising in 2014 and 2015, for which he seeks damages. According to public records, a jury in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, convicted Plaintiff of two counts of assault in the first degree and one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Judgment was entered on May 8, 2015, sentencing Plaintiff, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 14 years’ incarceration. In addition, judgment was entered in the same court on March 2, 2016, convicting Plaintiff, on his guilty plea, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree. For that matter, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of 1 ½ years’ incarceration. The two matters were

consolidated for appeal and unanimously affirmed. See People v. Garland, 65 N.Y.S.3d 167 (2017), aff’d, 32 N.Y.3d 1094 (2018), rearg. denied, 33 N.Y.3d 970 (Apr. 02, 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2525 (Mar. 23, 2020). Public records do not reflect that Plaintiff has filed any prior petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging either the 2015 or 2016 conviction. In this application, Plaintiff names as defendants Justice John Carter, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, and an Assistant District Attorney for Bronx County, Michael Schordine. Plaintiff argues that certain evidence, which he contends that Detective Sean O’Connell from the New York Police Department’s 149th Precinct obtained illegally, should have been excluded from Plaintiff’s trial. (ECF 1 at 3.) Plaintiff also argues that his defense counsel, Paul London, provided ineffective assistance of counsel, in that he failed to protect Plaintiff from “ambush from [the] prosecutor” in his summation at trial. (Id.) Moreover, Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment rights to a speedy trial allegedly were violated when his criminal

proceedings remained pending before Justice John Carter from September 18, 2012, to May 14, 2013. Plaintiff argues that the government’s statement of readiness for trial was illusory and that the period of time between certain adjournments was chargeable to the government. In addition to this challenge to his 2015 conviction, Plaintiff includes a paragraph titled, “Use of force.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff states the following: Date of incident September 24, 2015, time 920 (B.C.#875-15-003)-(B.C. #32101401068) Individual involved Correction Office Covington, shield 17730, Correction Office Perrone, shield #17422 and Captain Pine. Injuries sustained back, wrist and chronic headaches, medical treatment required, physical therapy and surgery required as a result of dates of injuries. Hot water scalding on back – (311C-11120-954-0433). Slip and fall, incident date October 3, 2014 (B.C. #2014- P-1014-206). Index #260-984-2015. Bodily injury resulted from the act committed by the court in violation of deprivation of Constitution rights deprived under the color of law. 2. Presently on medication due to unyielding prison trauma. (Id.)2 Plaintiff also asserts state law claims for “defamation of character,” though he does not plead any facts in connection with these claims. Plaintiff identifies the following as the relief that he seeks: (1) “pardon from deprivation of liberty,” based on a challenge to the constitutionality of his 2015 conviction and sentencing, and (2) damages for his unlawful imprisonment, and his pain and suffering.

2 All spelling and punctuation in the quoted material are from the original. DISCUSSION A. Attack on conviction and sentence Recharacterization as petition for a writ of habeas corpus Plaintiff challenges “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 prisoner must bring a habeas petition, rather than a Section 1983 action, when he

challenges “the fact or duration of his confinement” and seeks either “immediate release from prison,” or the “shortening” of his term of confinement. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79 (2005) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973))); see also Nance v. Ward, 142 S. Ct. 2214, 2221 (2022) (When considering “the dividing line between § 1983 and the federal habeas statute,” the issue is “whether a claim challenges the validity of a conviction or sentence.”). Because Plaintiff challenges his 2015 state court judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that it is unconstitutional, the complaint must be construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2254. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Owens v. Okure
488 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Heck v. Humphrey
512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Wilkinson v. Dotson
544 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Magwood v. Patterson
561 U.S. 320 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Bliven v. Hunt
579 F.3d 204 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Cortes v. City of New York
700 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Hogan v. Fischer
738 F.3d 509 (Second Circuit, 2013)
People v. Garland
2017 NY Slip Op 8302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Banister v. Davis
590 U.S. 504 (Supreme Court, 2020)
Holland v. Florida
177 L. Ed. 2d 130 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Baker v. Cuomo
58 F.3d 814 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Pearl v. City of Long Beach
296 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2002)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Garland v. Warden, Fishkill Correctional Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garland-v-warden-fishkill-correctional-facility-nysd-2022.