Pierre-Lys v. State of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 21, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-02759·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROODOLPH L. PIERRE-LYS, Petitioner, -against- 24-CV-2759 (LTS) STATE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY; AMY COOK, ORLEANS ORDER TO AMEND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently incarcerated at Hale Creek Correctional Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his sentence arising from his September 27, 2023 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, New York County.1 The Court directs Petitioner to file an amended petition within 60 days of the date of this order as detailed below. 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

1 Petitioner submitted the petition without the filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. By order dated April 26, 2024, the Court directed Petitioner to cure that deficiency. Petitioner paid the filing fee to bring this action on May 31, 2024. 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 The following allegations are gleaned from the 67-page petition, which includes pages that are crossed out or scribbled over and multiple copies of some pages. Petitioner alleges that he was convicted of violating New York State Penal Law §§ 220.21-01 and 220.16-01, which he describes as “[n]on-[v]iolent narcotic offense[s].”2 (ECF 1, at 3.)3 Petitioner states that he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release. (Id.) Petitioner asserts that he was pressured by the prosecutor into waiving his ability to participate in a “boot camp shock program.” (Id.) He alleges that “[d]uring the

Petitioner/Relators, guilty plea, the state prosecutor, excessed their authority in negotiating, and or demanding denial of the something, for the gross and ugly manner in that surrounds, an intolerable waiver,” which he maintains violates his federal constitutional rights. (Id.) The “foundation” of this habeas petition is “the prosecutor seeking, that the Petitioner/Relator, waive, surrender participation in such program.” (Id.)

2 New York Penal Law § 220.21 is the statute governing criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and New York Penal Law 220.16 pertains to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. 3 The Court quotes the petition verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless otherwise indicated. Petitioner seeks release from custody because “had it not been for the prosecutor[’s] breach of authority the Appellant/Relator, would have more than likely already been released based upon participation in the said programs.” (Id. at 13.) Without the prosecutor’s “bias and over reach,” Petitioner “more than likely would have been screened and placed within the

(Wilard)-boot camp, which consists of an intense (3)-Month program, (90)-days of physical and mental drug treatment programming,” after which he would have been released to “intense supervision.” (Id.) Petitioner asserts that the federal and state constitutions “support the Petitioners herein claims of denial of a guaranteed right be a coerced and unintelligent forced waiver. A negotiated guilty plea that, induces a defendant to surrender/waiver, a right to a rehabilitative option [must] never be permitted to stand as constitutional.” (Id. at 5) (brackets in original). He also contends that the waiver violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because the prosecutor “broached and impeded on the Department [of Corrections’] jurisdiction and as well Petitioners right[s], to rehabilitation, and the guaranteed right to do that while paying ones punitive debt to society.” (Id.

at 7.) Petitioner alleges no facts showing that he pursued a direct appeal. He instead states that he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, but “there has been no answer to said Habeas Corpus as of the filing of this Writ before this court.” (Id. at 5.) DISCUSSION A. 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 § 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.

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

Pierre-Lys v. State of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pierre-Lys v. State of New York (Pierre-Lys v. State of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related