Phelps v. Superintendent

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 29, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-10352·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DARRYL PHELPS, Petitioner, 20 Civ. 10352 (KPF) -v.- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF SUPERINTENDENT, Gouverneur FEE OR IFP APPLICATION Correctional Facility, Respondent. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge: Petitioner Darryl Phelps, currently incarcerated in Gouverneur Correctional Facility, filed this petition seeking compassionate release because of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision website, Petitioner is incarcerated for a parole violation, but he was originally convicted in 1997 in New York County, and his next parole hearing date is in May 2021. Petitioner asserts that he is 60 years old, suffers from hypertension, and is in “imminent danger” of contracting COVID-19. Petitioner does not describe the conditions of his confinement. On December 28, 2020, Petitioner submitted a letter seeking a temporary restraining order directing his release to a “residence facility.”1 Petitioner’s application is styled as a motion for compassionate release under a provision applicable to federal prisoners, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(a).

1 That letter indicates that Petitioner is seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (See Dkt. #3). Because Petitioner is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, § 3582(c)(1)(a) is inapplicable to him. Because Petitioner seeks immediate release from incarceration, it

appears that this application should be construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (“[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”); see also Llewellyn v. Wolcott, No. 20 Civ. 498 (JLS), 2020 WL 2525770, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. May 18, 2020) (noting that petitioner “does not seek an order directing prison or state officials to

improve or correct any alleged deficiencies in those [unconstitutional] conditions; he seeks only immediate release from physical custody,” which is available solely upon habeas corpus review). Petitioner is barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from filing any new action in forma pauperis (IFP), including a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, without first obtaining from the Court leave to file. See Phelps v. United States, No. 93 Civ. 3330 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 1993).2 See also

2 Petitioner is also barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the “three-strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), from filing any new action IFP while a prisoner unless his allegations satisfy the PLRA’s “imminent danger” exception. See Phelps v. Berkman, No. 12 Civ. 1437 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2012). The PLRA’s “three strikes” provision does not generally apply to habeas proceedings. See Jones v. Smith, 720 F.3d 142, 145-46 (2d Cir. 2013) (noting that habeas petitions not subject to PLRA three strikes provision, unless “analogous to the types of traditional civil suits that Congress was concerned about when it enacted the PLRA”). Phelps v. Leconey, No. 1:12 Civ. 2695, 21 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2012) (citing bar order issued in No. 93 Civ. 3330 as basis for dismissing petition under § 1651).

Moreover, to proceed with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court, a petitioner must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or, to request authorization to proceed IFP, that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Petitioner submitted this petition without the filing fee or an IFP application. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Petitioner must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or complete and submit the attached IFP application. If Petitioner submits the IFP application, it should be labeled with docket

number 20 Civ. 10352 (KPF). If the Court grants the IFP application, Petitioner will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).3 The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner and note service on the docket. No answer shall be required at this time. If Petitioner fails to comply with this Order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from

this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied 3 If Petitioner does not want to pursue relief under § 2254, he may notify the Court in writing within 30 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 does not inform the Court within 30 days of his intent to withdraw the application rather than have it recharacterized, the application shall remain designated as a petition under § 2254. for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: December 29, 2020 ' ' New York, New York Kathe Mal. fild- KATHERINE POLK FAILLA United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(full name of the plaintiff or petitioner applying (each person must submit a separate application)) CV ( ) ( ) -against- (Provide docket number, if available; if filing this with your complaint, you will not yet have a docket number.)

(full name(s) of the defendant(s)/respondent(s)) APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS I am a plaintiff/petitioner in this case and declare that I am unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and I believe that I am entitled to the relief requested in this action. In support of this application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (without prepaying fees or costs), I declare that the responses below are true:

1. Are you incarcerated? Yes No (If “No,” go to Question 2.) I am being held at:

Do you receive any payment from this institution? Yes No Monthly amount: If I am a prisoner, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915

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

Phelps v. Superintendent, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Castro v. United States
540 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Eric Adams v. United States
155 F.3d 582 (Second Circuit, 1998)
Jones v. Smith
720 F.3d 142 (Second Circuit, 2013)