Niles v. Bragg

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 8, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-09186
StatusUnknown

This text of Niles v. Bragg (Niles v. Bragg) 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
Niles v. Bragg, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PAUL NILES, Petitioner, 23-CV-9186 (LTS) -against- DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALVIN BRAGG, et ORDER al., Respondents. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner Paul Niles, who is proceeding pro se and currently incarcerated at the Central New York Psychiatric Center, has filed an application seeking the appointment of habeas corpus counsel, which he titles: “Affidavit in support of petitioner requesting appointment of counsel under forma pauperis status purs. to Title 18 § 3006(A)(2)(B) purs. to seeking relief under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” (ECF 1, at 1.) In the application, he notes that he seeks to challenge his October 10, 2017 judgment of conviction, entered in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. By order dated December 11, 2023, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 For the following reasons, the Court (1) designates Petitioner’s submission as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; (2) grants Petitioner 60 days’ leave to complete and file the attached Section 2254 form; (3) directs the Clerk of Court to dismiss from this action the named Respondents and add as the sole Respondent, the “Executive Director, Central New York Psychiatric Center,” under Rule 2(a) of

1 Petitioner did not submit an IFP application with his application for the appointment of counsel. On November 14, 2023, the Court directed Petitioner to submit an IFP application or pay the filing fee. On December 6, 2023, the Court received Petitioner’s IFP application. the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; and (4) denies Petitioner’s request for the appointment of habeas corpus counsel, without prejudice to renewal at a later stage. 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 Petitioner Paul Niles seeks habeas corpus counsel to represent him in his Section 2254 proceedings. In his application, he indicates that he intends to assert several grounds, including challenges to both DNA evidence and testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. He also indicates that he perfected his appeal, see People v. Niles, 200 A.D.3d 542 (2021), leave to appeal denied, 38 N.Y.3d 1189 (2022), and filed a motion to vacate his judgment under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10, which was denied “November 2022.”2 (ECF 1, at 1.) Petitioner’s application for counsel was notarized on October 11, 2023, and the Clerk’s Office received it on October 16, 2023. DISCUSSION

A. Designation of Application as Section 2254 Petition Petitioner’s application is construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2254 because Petitioner seeks 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. If Petitioner does not want to pursue relief under Section 2254, he must 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). If Petitioner allows this action to proceed as a Section 2254 proceeding, this petition will be his one opportunity to challenge his conviction. If Petitioner does not inform the Court of his intent within sixty days, the application shall remain designated as a petition under Section 2254.

B. Leave to File an Amended Petition Petitioner submitted an application for counsel in which he describes the grounds he intends to assert in a Section 2254 petition. The Court grants him leave to amend this submission so that it complies with Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and so that he may describe in detail his exhaustion of his state court remedies.

2 The Court of Appeals denied Petitioner leave to appeal on November 29, 2022. Niles, 28 N.Y.3d at 1189. Petitioner states that he filed a Section 440.10 motion, and that it was denied, but he does not state whether he appealed that denial to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. 1. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases A petitioner challenging his state court conviction must submit a petition that conforms 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. A petition must notify both the Court and the respondent

of the grounds for relief and the underlying facts and legal theory supporting each ground so that the issues presented in the petition may be adjudicated. Petitioner’s submission does not specify all his grounds or the supporting facts for most his grounds. Mindful of the Court’s duty to construe pro se actions liberally, see Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), the Court has analyzed Petitioner’s submission and finds that it does not identify the constitutional basis for the petition. The Court therefore grants Petitioner 60 days’ leave to complete the attached form and include each ground he intends to raise and the supporting facts for each ground. Petitioner is advised that an amended petition completely replaces the original petition. 2. Exhaustion of State Court Remedies Before filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Section 2254, a petitioner must

exhaust his state court remedies. 28 U.S.C.

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)
Rose v. Lundy
455 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 1982)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Castro v. United States
540 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Eric Adams v. United States
155 F.3d 582 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Acosta v. Artuz
221 F.3d 117 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Niles v. Bragg, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niles-v-bragg-nysd-2024.