Watson v. The People of the State of New York

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedNovember 15, 2019
Docket1:19-cv-00707
StatusUnknown

This text of Watson v. The People of the State of New York (Watson v. The People of the State of New York) 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
Watson v. The People of the State of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSEPH WATSON, Petitioner, 19-CV-0707(CM) -against- ORDER PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner,appearing pro se,submits a letter requestingtheCourt’s permission to proceed with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his October 27, 2004 conviction in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, of grand larceny in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property. By order dated October 28, 2019, the Court granted Petitioner’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Petitionerpermission to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus within sixty days of the date of this order. BACKGROUND Petitioner has filed multiple unexhausted habeas corpus petitions in this Court, challenging his October 27, 2004 conviction. On June 25, 2012, Judge Paul Gardephe issued an order requiringPetitioner,before filing any new petition,“to obtain permission from the Court and submit documentation that he has perfected his direct appeal.”Watson v. Bezio,ECF 1:11- CV-3591, 29, 2012 WL 2389753, at *3(S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2012),appeal dismissed, No. 12-3103 (2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2012).Judge Gardephe imposed this habeas corpus filing restriction because of Petitioner’s repeated attempts to seek habeas corpusrelief in this Court despite his failure to perfect his direct appeal and exhaust his available state-court remedies. See Watson, 2012 WL 23899754, at *3-4 (report and recommendation recounting Petitioner’s litigation history and failure to perfect his direct appeal and exhaust available state-court remedies; recommending the filing restriction). On January 23, 2019, Petitioner submitted a letter to the Court asserting that on January 3, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department (Appellate

Division),denied his motion for further enlargement of time to perfect his appeal and dismissed his appeal.Petitioner also requests guidance on whether he can now proceed with a habeas corpus petition in this Court, or alternatively, what other steps he must now take. Petitioner’s letter was opened as a new habeas corpus action. On October 23, 2019, mistakenly believing that the Court has granted him permission to proceed with his petition, Petitioner submitted a letter thanking the Court. He also asserts his belief that the New York County District Attorney “had no jurisdiction to take [him] into part 93 of New York County Court”(ECF No. 5, 1),and submits as exhibits documents relating to his indictment and transcripts of grand jury proceedings.

DISCUSSION A. Exhaustion and Procedural Default Petitioner submitted his January 23, 2019 letter to the Court seeking leave to proceed with a habeas corpus petition. As documentation that he has perfected his appeal and exhausted his state-court remedies, Petitioner provides the Appellate Division’s January 3, 2019decision, which, without explanation, denied his motion for enlargement of time to perfect his appeal and granted the state’s cross motion to dismiss the appeal.1

1 Petitioner does not allege that he sought permission to appeal the Appellate Division’s dismissal order to the New York Court of Appeals within thirty days pursuant to N.Y. Crim. P. L. §460.10(4)and §470.60(3). Generally, a federal court will not entertain a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254until a petitioner has fully exhausted his available state-court remedies.See28 U.S.C. §2254(b); see alsoRose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982).Exhaustion of state remedies requires presentation of the claim to the highest state court from which a decision can be obtained. Daye v. Attorney General of the State of New York, 696 F.2d 186, 191 n. 3 (2d

Cir.1982) (“[A] petitioner need not give the state court system more than one full opportunity to rule on his claims; if he has presented his claims to the highest state court on direct appeal he need not also seek state collateral relief.”). When a habeaspetition presents unexhausted claims, the federal court must determine whether thepetitioner could return to state court to exhaust the claims. Jackson v. Conway, 763 F.3d 115, 133 (2d Cir. 2014). If the petitioner cannot obtain further review of the unexhausted claims in state court because of procedural reasons, then the federal court must deem the claims procedurally defaulted. Carvajal v. Artus, 633 F.3d 95, 104 (2d Cir. 2011); see also Jackson, 763 F.3d at 133 (“[I]f the state prisoner fails to exhaust his state remedies in a manner in which, were

he to return to the state courts with his unexhausted claim, those courts would find the claim barred by the application of a state procedural rule, we must deem the claim procedurally defaulted.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). A federal court may address the merits of claims that areprocedurally defaulted only if the petitioner can establish either “cause for the default and prejudice”or that he is “‘actually innocent’of the crime for which he was convicted.” Carvajal, 633 F.3d at 104(citation omitted). Here, it appears that because Petitioner failed to perfect his appeal, the Appellate Division granted the state’s motion to dismiss the appeal on procedural grounds and did not consider the merits of Petitioner’s claim.As direct review of Petitioner’s conviction appears to be concluded and no other avenue of appeal appears to remain, any unexhausted claims Petitioner seeks to raise in a habeaspetition must be deemed procedurally defaulted. B. Leave to File a Petition Because Petitioner may now be procedurally barred from presenting his grounds for relief to the state courts, he can no longer comply with the June 25, 2012 order requiring him to

“submit documentation that he has perfected his direct appeal.”See Watson, 2012 WL 2389753, at *3.As no purpose would be served by requiring Petitioner to return to state court to attempt to exhaust claims that are procedurally barred, the Court grants him permission to file a petition within sixty days. In his petition, Petitioner must show that he meets the “in custody” requirement in any new petition, that is, he is “‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court’at the time [the] petition is filed.”Nowakowski v. New York, 835 F.3d 210, 215 (2d Cir. 2016)(citation omitted).2 In addition, in accordance with Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the petition must specify all of Petitioner’s available grounds for

2The United States district courts have jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas corpus relief only from persons who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §2241(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. §2254(a). The United States Supreme Court has interpreted these provisions as “requiring that the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.”Maleng v.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Rose v. Lundy
455 U.S. 509 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon
466 U.S. 294 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Murray v. Carrier
477 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Maleng v. Cook
490 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Coleman v. Thompson
501 U.S. 722 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Carvajal v. Artus
633 F.3d 95 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Zimmerman v. Burge
492 F. Supp. 2d 170 (E.D. New York, 2007)
Valdez v. Hulihan
640 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Jackson v. Conway
763 F.3d 115 (Second Circuit, 2014)
Nowakowski v. New York
835 F.3d 210 (Second Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Watson v. The People of the State of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-the-people-of-the-state-of-new-york-nysd-2019.