Smalls v. Morton

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 18, 2019
Docket1:19-cv-04220
StatusUnknown

This text of Smalls v. Morton (Smalls v. Morton) 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
Smalls v. Morton, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CARL LEON SMALLS, Petitioner, 19-CV-4220 (LLS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND ROBERT MORTON, Respondent. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Downstate Correctional Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order dated June 17, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave 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 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 to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them “to raise the

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). strongest arguments they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (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.” Tragath v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983). BACKGROUND

On June 22, 2016, the New York Supreme Court, New York County, convicted Petitioner on his plea of guilty to conspiracy in the fourth degree and criminal sale of a firearm in the first degree and sentenced him to 15 years’ incarceration. Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking modification of his sentence. His sole ground for relief is that the sentence imposed by the court is excessive. He states: “The court should [r]educe Carl Smalls’s 15-year sentence for this [f]irst-time offense in light of his young age, strong family ties, employment history, expressions of [r]emorse, and the [d]isproportionately lesser sentences imposed on his co-[d]efendants.” (Pet. at 5.) Petitioner raised this ground on direct appeal. See People v. Smalls, 90 N.Y.S.3d 529 (Mem) (App. Div. 1st Dep’t Jan. 24, 2019), leave to appeal denied, 33 N.Y.3d 954 (N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019). He did not file a post-conviction

petition or motion in the state court. DISCUSSION A petitioner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment may seek a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 “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). Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases 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 for federal habeas corpus relief 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. The current petition does not conform to Rule 2(c)’s requirements. Petitioner’s ground for challenging his sentence does not raise a constitutional issue. A challenge to the term of a sentence is not a violation of the Eighth Amendment if the sentence falls within the statutory

range. Mason v. Duncan, No. 02-CV-5729 (KMW) (RLE), 2011 WL 2519212, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 2518964 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2011); see also White v. Keane, 969 F.2d 1381, 1383 (2d Cir. 1992) (“No federal constitutional issue is presented where, as here, the sentence is within the range prescribed by state law.”). Unless a trial court arbitrarily sentences a defendant excessively, a habeas corpus petitioner generally cannot collaterally challenge a statutorily authorized sentence. See, e.g., Mason, 2011 WL 2519212, at *7 (“The Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence, but rather forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime.”) (citing United States v. Bullock, 550 F.3d 247, 252 (2d Cir. 2008)). Because

Petitioner was sentenced to a period of incarceration of 15 years, which is within the statutory range for criminal sale of a firearm in the first degree, a Class B felony, see N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.13, 70.00(2)(b), his claim of an excessive sentence does not raise a federal constitutional issue. LEAVE TO AMEND 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 federal constitutional 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 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 and to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner. Petitioner is directed to file an amended petition that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended petition to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as “Amended Petition,” and label the document with docket number 19-CV-4220 (LLS). An Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form is attached to this order.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Smalls v. Morton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smalls-v-morton-nysd-2019.