Moise v. Fields

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 22, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-11964·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EDDIE MOISE, Petitioner, 19-CV-11964 (LLS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND LEROY FIELDS, Respondent. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpusunder 28 U.S.C. §2254, challenging his May 28, 2014New YorkCounty judgment of conviction, in which a jury found him guilty of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon, third-degree criminal sale of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. By order dated April 17, 2020, the Court directed Petitionerto show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner filed a declaration, and the Court has reviewed it. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Petitioner leave to file an amended petition within sixty 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 §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. Nunez, 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 challenges his May 28, 2014 judgment of conviction, which became final on April 28, 2017.1 He had one year, until April 28, 2018, to file this petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (A).Petitioner signed his original submission on December 10, 2019.Because Petitioner filed this petition after the statute of limitations expired on April 28, 2018, the Court ordered him to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely. In Petitioner’s declaration, he allegesthat he filed a motion to vacate his judgment under New York Criminal Procedure Law §440.10 but does not state when he filed it. It is also unclear whether the § 440.10 motion is still pending.

Petitioner also alleges that he filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but he does not state the date he filed this petition.Court records show that on September 19, 2019, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s December 28, 2018 denial of Petitioner state writ of

1 Court records indicate that the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed Petitioner’s conviction, and the Court of Appeals denied Petitioner leave to appeal on January 18, 2017.See People v. Moise, 144 A.D.3d 491 (1st Dep’t 2016), leave denied, 28 N.Y.3d 1148 (2017). Petitioner’s conviction became final on April 28, 2017, 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). habeas corpus.See People ex rel. Moise v. Coveny, 175 A.D.3d 1693, 1693 (3rd Dep’t 2019), leave to appeal denied, 34 N.Y.3d 912 (2020). DISCUSSION A. Statute of Limitations The Court finds that Petitioner’s submission is untimelybecause the time to file the petition expired on April 28, 2018, and Petitioner filed his submission on December 10, 2019.

Although Petitioner filed two post-conviction motions, he did not allege in his declaration that he filed either of these motions before April 28, 2018; to toll the statute of limitations, a postconviction motionmust be filed before the expiration of the limitationperiod.See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). Apostconviction motion filed after the limitations period expires doesnot start the limitations period anew. See Smith v. McGinnis, 208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that “proper calculation of Section 2244(d)(2)’s tolling provision excludes time during which properly filed state relief applications are pending but does not reset the date from which the one- year statute of limitations begins to run”). B. Exhaustion of State Court Remedies The Court also finds that Petitioner has not exhausted all of his grounds. A state prisoner

must exhaust all available state remedies before filinga petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254. 28 U.S.C. §2254(b); see Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982).While Petitioner’s original submission and his declaration show that he exhausted the grounds raised in his direct appeal and his state habeas corpus petition, these submissions and court records donot show that he exhausted the grounds raised in his § 440.10 motion. Petitioner also appears to raise a new ground –that he is actually innocent –whichdoes not appear to have been raised in any proceeding. C. Leave to File an Amended Petition The Court grants Petitioner leave to submit an amended petitionwithin sixty days of the date of this order to address these deficiencies. Should Petitioner decide to file an amended petition,he must state his grounds for relief and detail the steps he has taken to exhaust them fully in the state courts. Specifically, Petitioner must state the dates he filedhis § 440.10 motion

and his state habeas corpus petition, and the dates he filed appeals of those decisions. If his §440.10 motion is still pending, he must state in which court the motion is being considered. Petitioner also must state each ground he raised in each proceeding. Petitioner must exhaust all available state court remedies in order to proceed with this petition. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(1). Petitioner is advised that an amended petition completely replaces the original petition. Attached to this order is an amended petition form, which the Court directs Petitioner to complete should he file an amended petition.He may attach additional pages to the completed form. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitionerand note service on the docket.

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

Moise v. Fields, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

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

Related