Sampson v. Miller

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 21, 2019
Docket1:19-cv-05227
StatusUnknown

This text of Sampson v. Miller (Sampson v. Miller) 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
Sampson v. Miller, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SAMMY SAMPSON, Petitioner, 19-CV-5227 (CM) -against- ORDER TO AMEND SUPT. MILLER, Respondent. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, who is incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility,1 brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his May 28, 2014 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. By order dated June 5, 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. 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

1 According to the New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision, Petitioner is temporarily at Rikers Island. “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 Sammy Sampson was convicted in New York State Supreme Court, Bronx County, of assault in the second degree as a hate crime, and he was sentenced to 16 years to life in prison. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. See People v Sampson, 61 N.Y.S.3d 884 (1st Dep’t Oct. 19, 2017), lv. denied, 77 N.Y.S.3d 344 (Feb. 15, 2018). This is Petitioner’s first § 2254 petition, and the petition was timely under § 2254(d)(1)(A) when it was given to prison officials for mailing on May 13, 2019. The Court received the petition on May 31, 2019. The Appellate Division affirmance indicates that Petitioner raised the following issues on direct appeal: (1) there was legally insufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) the trial

court failed to timely respond to a jury note requesting the readback of testimony; and (3) counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s handling of the jury note. Petitioner seeks habeas relief from this Court on the following grounds: (1) counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena telephone records; and (2) the prosecution’s failure to provide the telephone records constituted a Brady violation. DISCUSSION 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. 1997) (quoting Daye v. Attorney General, 696 F.2d 186, 191 (2d Cir. 1982)). In order 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 (McKinney 2010). 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. Id. at § 460.20 (McKinney 2010); 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). It is unclear based on the information provided whether Petitioner has fully exhausted his state-court remedies before commencing this action. Petitioner does not show that he presented the same grounds raised in this petition to the state courts. Based on the Appellate Division affirmance, on direct appeal Petitioner challenged his conviction on different grounds than those presented here. The Court grants Petitioner leave to file an amended petition to clarify what his grounds for relief are and whether he has exhausted his state court remedies. Leave to Amend Petition The Court grants Petitioner leave to submit an amended petition within sixty days of the date of this order. 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 New York courts. Petitioner must exhaust all available state court remedies in order to proceed with this Petition.1

See 28 U.S.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, to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner, and to note service on the docket. Petitioner is directed to file an amended petition containing the information specified above. The amended petition must be submitted to the Clerk’s Office within sixty days of the date of this order, be captioned as an “Amended Petition” and bear the same docket number as this order. An Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sampson v. Miller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sampson-v-miller-nysd-2019.