McVay v. Walker

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 17, 2022·No. 1:22-cv-06572·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JEFFREY MCVAY, Petitioner, 22-CV-6572 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND S. WALKER, Warden at R.N.D.C. C-74, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: On July 29, 2022, the Court received from Maurice Mayo, a pretrial detainee on Rikers Island, a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Mayo v. Walker, ECF 1:22-CV-5810, 1. Mayo brought this petition on behalf of himself and 11 other detainees, including the Petitioner in this action, Jeffrey McVay. By order dated July 29, 2022, the Court severed, under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioner McVay’s habeas corpus claims and directed the Clerk of Court to open a new civil action, listing McVay, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” as the Petitioner. On August 4, 2022, the Court directed Petitioner to either pay the $5.00 filing fee to bring this action or complete, sign, and submit an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. On August 16, 2022, the Court received Petitioner’s IFP application, which the Court granted on September 2, 2022. (ECF 4-5.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court: (1) recharacterizes the petition as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (2) provides Petitioner the opportunity to withdraw the petition, and (3) grants Petitioner 60 days’ leave to file an amended petition. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a person in custody challenging the legality of his detention on the ground that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Court has the authority to review the petition and “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled [to such relief].” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 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 Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 (2d Cir. 1983). Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is not exempt “from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). BACKGROUND The petition, which was prepared by Maurice Mayo, asserts that Mayo and 11 other detainees on Rikers Island, including Petitioner, are being held illegally. Mayo claims that every court in New York City are committing fraud. They are illegally waiving our constitutional right to a grand jury and holding us on A Superior Court Information in violation of C.P.L. 195.20(D) Paragraph II which is a direct violation of the United States Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments. Lawyers are violating all ethic codes including the 6th Amendment that guarantees the people an effective assistance of counsel. Instead, they are conspiring with the district attorneys to violate all of our Constitutional rights, and infringing & circumventing due process of the law. (ECF 1, at 3.)1 Petitioner asserts that his custody is illegal because he is being held pursuant to a “Superior Court Information,” and his constitutional right to a grand jury was violated when he agreed to a waiver of indictment. He refers to New York Criminal Procedure Law § 195.20(d), which states:

1 Quotations from the petition are verbatim, including spelling, grammar and added emphasis. A waiver of indictment shall be evidenced by a written instrument, which shall contain the name of the court in which it is executed, the title of the action, and the name, date and approximate time and place of each offense to be charged in the superior court information to be filed by the district attorney pursuant to section 195.40. The offenses named may include any offense for which the defendant was held for action of a grand jury and any offense or offenses properly joinable therewith pursuant to sections 200.20 and 200.40. The written waiver shall also contain a statement by the defendant that he is aware that: . . . (d) the superior court information to be filed by the district attorney will have the same force and effect as an indictment filed by a grand jury. He further asserts that his lawyer is conspiring with the District Attorney’s Office to deny him his rights, presumably by agreeing to Petitioner’s waiver of indictment. Attached to the petition is Petitioner’s criminal case docket report, which indicates that officers from the New York City Police Department arrested him on October 27, 2021, and that his criminal case is pending in New York Supreme Court, New York County. (Id. at 24.) Specifically, it shows that a “true bill” was presented on November 1, 2021, and that Petitioner was not “arraigned.” (Id.) It also shows that Petitioner pleaded not guilty on November 23, 2021. (Id.) In a hand-written note below the docket sheet, Mayo writes: “fraudulent indictment.” (Id.) Publicly available court records indicate that Petitioner’s most recent court date was on October 13, 2022, and his next court appearance is scheduled for November 18, 2022. See People v. McVay, No. IND-70670-21 (N.Y. Supt. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.). DISCUSSION A. Pretrial habeas corpus relief Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief under Section 2254, which is the vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of an individual’s custody, after an individual has been convicted in a state court and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment. See Cook v. New York State Division of Parole, 321 F.3d 274, 278 (2d Cir. 2003). For those individuals who have yet to be sentenced, a petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of pretrial detention. See Hoffler v. Bezio, 726 F.3d 144, 146 (2d Cir. 2013) (assuming without deciding that Section 2241 petition is the proper vehicle for state prisoner, in custody awaiting a retrial); see, e.g., Taylor v. New York City, No. 20-CV-5036, 2020 WL 4369602, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2020) (construing claim by pretrial detainee seeking release due to COVID-19 exposure as arising under Section 2241) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial

Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973)). B. Designation of application as petition brought under 28 U.S.C.

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

McVay v. Walker, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky
410 U.S. 484 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Cecil Simon, A.K.A. Cecil Jackson v. United States
359 F.3d 139 (Second Circuit, 2004)
Hoffler v. Bezio
726 F.3d 144 (Second Circuit, 2013)
People v. Baez
20 Misc. 3d 906 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs
134 S. Ct. 584 (Supreme Court, 2013)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)