Robles v. New York State (N.Y.S.)

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 2, 2019
Docket1:19-cv-00260
StatusUnknown

This text of Robles v. New York State (N.Y.S.) (Robles v. New York State (N.Y.S.)) 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
Robles v. New York State (N.Y.S.), (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NICHOLAS ROBLES JR., Petitioner, -against- NEW YORK STATE (N.Y.S.), AGENTS; 19-CV-0260 (CM) DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, (D.O.C.); EMPLOYEES, COMMUNITY ORDER TO AMEND SUPERVISION (C.S.); REPRESENTATIVES, (REP), BOARD OF PAROLE, (B.O.P.), ET AL.,1 Respondents. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner Nicholas Robles Jr., currently incarcerated in Gouverneur Correctional Facility, brings this pro se “Petition for Great Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant: 28 U.S.C.A. 2253-2254.” By order dated July 26, 2019, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court directs Petitioner to file an amended petition within sixty 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

1 Petitioner is advised that the proper respondent in a habeas corpus petition is the warden, custodian, or superintendent of the facility where petitioner is in custody. See Rule 2(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 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 brings this petition, noting two different department identification numbers — “Prisoner # 07-A-4149, Parole-Violator, (P.V.) #88-A-4321.” The petition is unclear as to why Petitioner is currently incarcerated and what his grounds for relief are. The documents attached to the petition also do not help to make clear the grounds Petitioner may be raising to challenge his current incarceration. It is also unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies before bringing this petition before the Court. All that is clear from the petition is that Petitioner seeks to be released from custody. DISCUSSION A. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases A state prisoner 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 permit the Court and the respondent to comprehend both the petitioner’s grounds for relief and the underlying facts and legal theory supporting each ground so that the issues presented in the petition may be adjudicated.

This Petition does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 2(c). Petitioner fails to specify his grounds for relief and the supporting facts. 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 neither the Court nor a respondent could discern the constitutional basis for the petition. B. 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 US. 838, 844-45 (1999). A petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement by fairly presenting his claims through a state’s established appellate review process. /d. “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. 1997) (quoting Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir. 1982)). To exhaust any issues for purpose of habeas corpus review, Petitioner must appeal his judgment of conviction to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. N.Y. Crim. P. L. § 460.70. Should that court’s decision adversely affect Petitioner, he should then seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court. /d. at § 460.20 (McKinney 2019); see Bagley v. LaVallee, 332 F.2d 890, 892 (2d Cir. 1964). Should Petitioner raise for habeas corpus relief any grounds raised in N.Y. Crim. P. L. § 440.10 motions and/or other collateral motions, he must show that those grounds have been completely exhausted by seeking leave to appeal to the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Ramos v. Walker, 88 F. Supp. 2d 233 (S.D.N-Y. 2000).

C. Leave to Amend Petition Considering Petitioner’s pro se status, the Court grants Petitioner leave to amend his petition within sixty days of the date of this order. In the amended petition, Petitioner must set forth facts concerning his grounds for relief and clearly describe the ruling or decision that he seeks to challenge and state why that ruling or decision is unlawful. He must also explain what steps, if any, he has taken to exhaust the available remedies, or describe how the available remedies were inadequate to challenge the decision or order at issue. See Gonzalez v. Perrill, 919 F.2d 1, 1 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (“It is well-settled that an appellant must exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking habeas corpus relief in the federal courts.”).” See 28 US.C. § 2254(b)(1). Petitioner is advised that an amended petition completely replaces the original petition. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket, mail a copy of this order to Petitioner, and note service on the docket. Petitioner is directed to file an amended petition that complies with the standards set forth above.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robles v. New York State (N.Y.S.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robles-v-new-york-state-nys-nysd-2019.