Giardala v. Bell

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 19, 2020
Docket1:19-cv-11917
StatusUnknown

This text of Giardala v. Bell (Giardala v. Bell) 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
Giardala v. Bell, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSEPH GIARDALA, Petitioner, 19-CV-11917 (CM) -against- ORDER TO AMEND E. BELL, Respondent. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, brings this pro seletter seeking the appointment of counsel to assist him in challenginghis conviction.The Court directs Petitioner to filean in forma pauperis (IFP) application andapetition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254,within sixty 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.” 28U.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; seeAcosta v. Nunez, 221F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro sepleadings 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); seeGreen v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, apro selitigant 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 Plaintiff submits a letter in which he seeks the appointment of counsel for a case in which he claims he is innocent. He states that “the case is from 1995.” (ECF 1 at 1.) He also states that

he has “been in special education class growing up and have [sic]difficulty learning and understanding.” (Id.) He provides phone numbers for his family members for the Court to contact. Attached to the letteris a request to proceed IFP and for the assignment of counsel. Publicly available records indicate that on August 8, 2016, a New York Supreme Court, New York County jury convicted Petitioner of first-degree rape, first-degree sodomy, two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, and first-degree robbery,based on newly identified DNA evidence. See People v. Giardala, 165 A.D.3d 569 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2018). Petitioner had moved in the trial court to dismiss the indictment as time-barred because the offense conduct had occurred in 1995.Id.at 569. The Appellate Division held that “[t]he applicable five-year state of limitations was tolled [citation omitted] because defendant’s identity and whereabouts were unknown and

unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence [citations omitted].” Id.The Appellate Division noted that: After this 1995 crime, law enforcement authorities exhausted all reasonable investigative possibilities, and were not required to keep repeating the same futile steps. Years later, when DNA technology provided the ability to identify the perpetrator by matching DNA, this case was one of thousands of similar cases awaiting DNA comparison, and this reasonably accounts for any additional delay [citations omitted]. Id. Petitioner appealed the Appellate Division’s decision, and on January 18, 2019, the New York Court of Appeals denied him leave to appeal. See People v. Giardala, 32 N.Y.3d 1172 (2019). DISCUSSION Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases Petitioner submitted a letter to the Court indicating that he wished to challenge his state court conviction. But this letter is insufficient to initiate a federal proceeding. Instead, Petitioner must file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A petition brought under § 2254 is the proper vehicle for a petitioner to challenge “the

judgment of a State court . . . 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 § 2254petition must conform 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.Thepetition 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. Mindful of the Court’s duty to construe pro sesubmissions liberally, seeHarris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), the Court has analyzed Petitioner’s letterand finds that neither the Court nor a respondent could discern the constitutional basis for Petitioner’s challenge.

Although hestates that he is innocent, theletter does not provide any information regarding the underlying facts that support his claim of innocence. Moreover, although the Court learned of Petitioner’s conviction and procedural historythrough publicly available records, the letter itself does not include any of this information. Finally, if Petitioner has other grounds challenging the constitutionality of his conviction, he must raise those grounds in the § 2254 petition or risk forfeiting the opportunity to raise them in a future petition.1Thus, the Court concludes that to challenge his state-court conviction, Petitioner must file a § 2254 petition. Leave to File a Petition The Court grants Petitioner leave to submit apetitionwithin sixty days of the date of this order. Should Petitioner decide to file apetition,he must state his grounds for relief and provide

facts in support of each ground.Petitioner also must submit a new IFP application or pay the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner is advised that he has one year from the date his judgment of conviction becomes final to file his petition. See28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Generally, a judgment of conviction becomes final following “the expiration of [the] 90-day period of time to petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States.” Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Here, Petitioner’s time to file a § 2254 petition expires one year and 90 days from the date the Appellate Division affirmed his conviction. See Sup. Ct. R. 13(1) (setting the 90-day deadline). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitionerand note service on the docket. Petitioner is directed to file a § 2254petition and an IFP application containing the

information specified above. The petition must be submitted to the Clerk’s Office within sixty days of the date of this order, be captioned as a “Petition” and bear the same docket number as this order. APetition Under 28 U.S.C.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Giardala v. Bell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giardala-v-bell-nysd-2020.