Latimore v. Clinton County

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 22, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-04276·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THEODORE LATIMORE, Petitioner, 24-CV-4276 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND CLINTON COUNTY, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently incarcerated at Altona Correctional Facility in Clinton County, New York, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which is captioned for the New York State Supreme Court, Clinton County. By order dated July 2, 2024, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court notifies Petitioner that this application must be recharacterized as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and grants Petitioner leave to withdraw the application, within 30 days, if he does not want it to be recharacterized. If Petitioner wishes to proceed with a Section 2254 petition, he must file an amended Section 2254 petition, as detailed below, 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 Section 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 In the submission, which is captioned for the New York State Supreme Court, Clinton County, Petitioner alleges the following: illegally sentenced as a second time nonviolent felony offender my last nonviolent felony was 13 years ago the max as a first time nonviolent felony offender is 1 to 5 years I received a 1 1/3 to four.1 (ECF 1 ¶ 3.) Plaintiff does not identify the conviction he seeks to challenge. According to the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Inmate Lookup, in 2022, Petitioner was convicted in Dutchess County of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and two counts of grand larceny “not auto” in the fourth degree.2 DISCUSSION I. Recharacterization as Section 2254 Petition Petitioner appears to be is challenging his 2022 conviction in the New York State Supreme Court, Dutchess County. This application must therefore be construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2254, because he seeks to challenge “the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

1 The Court quotes from the petition verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless otherwise indicated. 2 See https://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/ [https://perma.cc/YCV4-APTF]. treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. If Petitioner does not want to pursue relief under Section 2254, he may notify the Court in writing within 60 days that he wishes to withdraw the application. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003); Adams v. United States, 155 F.3d 582, 584 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Cook v. New York State Div. of Parole, 321 F.3d 274,

282 (2d Cir. 2003). Petitioner will have one opportunity within the limitations period for a full adjudication of his claims. If Petitioner does not inform the Court of his intent within 60 days, the application shall remain designated as a petition under Section 2254. 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 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, 112 F.3d 50, 52 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir. 1982)). In order to exhaust any issues for purpose of habeas corpus review, Petitioner must appeal his judgment of conviction to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. N.Y. Crim. P. L. § 460.70 (McKinney 2010). Should that court’s decision adversely affect Petitioner, he should then seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court. Id. at § 460.20 (McKinney 2010); see Bagley v. LaVallee, 332 F.2d 890, 892 (2d Cir. 1964). Should Petitioner assert for habeas corpus relief any grounds raised in N.Y. Crim. P. L. § 440.10 motions and/or other collateral motions, he must show that those grounds have been completely exhausted by seeking leave to appeal to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Ramos v. Walker, 88 F. Supp. 2d 233 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). It is not clear that Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies. According to publicly available records, on September 26, 2022, the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate

Division, Second Department, granted Petitioner’s motions to prosecute appeals from two criminal judgments as a poor person and for the assignment of counsel.

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

Latimore v. Clinton County, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Latimore v. Clinton County (Latimore v. Clinton County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related