Solis v. Brown

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 21, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-02700·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSE SOLIS, Petitioner, 24-CV-2700 (LTS) -against- ATTORNEY VICTOR MANUEL BROWN, ORDER TO AMEND NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, currently incarcerated in the Mid-State Correctional Facility, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. By order dated May 6, 2024, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court grants Petitioner leave 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 deny 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 Section 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 petition provides little information about the events giving rise to this action. Petitioner does not identify the conviction that he wants this Court to review or the grounds for

any challenge to that conviction. (ECF 1 ¶¶ 1-7.) He checks the box on the court’s habeas corpus form petition indicating that he appealed the conviction, and filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and “other applications concerning this judgment of conviction.” (Id. ¶¶ 8-10), but a review of publicly available court records could find no record of any prior matters. The named Respondent is Victor Manuel Brown, who appears to be a New York County Assistant District Attorney. According to the New York State Department of Corrections Inmate Lookup, Petitioner entered state custody on April 20, 2023, having been convicted in New York County of attempted assault in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree, and having been sentenced to two to four years in prison.1

DISCUSSION I. 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

1 See https://perma.cc/REH2-G6N6. 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 conform to the requirements of Rule 2(c). Petitioner fails to identify the conviction he seeks to challenge or 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 Respondent would be able to discern the constitutional basis for the petition. The Court grants Petitioner leave to file an amended petition that provides the background facts that are missing from the original petition. II. 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)). To exhaust any issues for purpose of habeas corpus review, a petitioner challenging a New York State conviction must appeal his judgment of conviction to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division. N.Y. Crim. Proc Law § 460.70. Should that court’s decision adversely affect the petitioner, he should then seek leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the New York State’s highest state court. Id. at § 460.20; see Bagley v. LaVallee, 332 F.2d 890, 892 (2d Cir. 1964). Should the petitioner raise for habeas corpus relief any grounds raised in postconviction collateral motions brought under Section 440.10 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law and/or other collateral motions, he must show that those grounds have been completely exhausted by seeking leave to appeal to the Appellate Division or, if appropriate, to

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

Solis v. Brown, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

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

Related