Watson v. The People of the State of New York

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 17, 2020
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. 2020).

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 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 requiring Petitioner, 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). On January 23, 2019, Petitioner submitteda letter requesting the Court’s permission to proceed with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.§2254, asserting that on January 3, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department, denied his motion for further enlargement of time to perfect his appeal and dismissed his appeal. On November 15, 2019, the Court held that because Petitioner appears to be procedurally barred from presenting his grounds for relief to the state courts, he could no longer comply with Judge Gardephe’s June 25, 2012 order. The Court then granted Petitioner leave to file a new petition within 60 days, and it providedthe following direction: 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. NewYork, 835 F.3d 210, 215 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).(footnote omitted) 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 habeas corpus relief, set forth the facts supporting each of the specified grounds, and state the relief requested. Finally, as it appears that Petitioner’s claims are procedurally defaulted, he must establish either “cause for the default andprejudice”or that he is “‘actually innocent’of the crime for which he was convicted.”(footnote omitted) [Carvajal v. Artus, 633 F.3d 95, 104 (2d Cir. 2011)]. (ECF No. 7, 4.) In response to the order, instead of submitting a new petition as directed, Petitioner submits a document titled “Notice of Petition for Rule 60(b)(3)(4)(6),”with a barrage of attachments. (ECF No. 9.) The Court liberally construes this submission as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from a judgment or order. SeeTriestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006).After reviewing the arguments in Petitioner’s submission, the Court denies the motion. DISCUSSION A. Motion for Reconsideration Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), a party may seek relief from a district court’s order or judgment for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5)the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Petitioner’s motion is confusing. He acknowledges that he is no longer in custody and that his claims are procedurally defaulted, but he urges the Court to consider his grounds and vacate his October 27, 2004 state-court conviction, contending that he is entitledto relief under clauses 3-6 of Rule 60(b). It appears that Petitioner misunderstood the Court’s November 15, 2019. Petitioner does not have a pending habeas corpuspetition before the Court. He requested permission to file such a petition and the Court granted his request in the November 15, 2019order. For the Court to

consider any of Petitioner’s claims, he must first file a petition. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration must be denied. He fails to allege facts demonstrating that any of the grounds listed in the first five clauses of Rule 60(b) applies or that extraordinary circumstances exist to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Petitioner does not present any legal or factual matters that would call into question the Court’s order granting him leave to file a new petition. B. Leave to File Petition In light of Petitioner’s apparent confusion, the Court grants him an additional 30 days to file a petition. Although Petitioner has been discharged from parole, he may meet the “in custody” requirement if he remains exposed to “future adverse consequences on discretion of the

supervising court”or other authority.See Nowakowski, 835 F.3d at 216. Petitioner must allege facts in the petition showing that he meets the in custody requirement, that is, he continues to suffer from restraints not shared by the general public. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491 (1989). Petitioner should note that the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition from persons who are no longer in custody. See Maleng, 490 U.S. 490-91. In addition, any petition filed must clearly list each of Petitioner’s grounds for relief and set forth the supporting facts. Even if Petitioner’s claims are procedurally barred, the Court may be able to consider them if he can establish “cause of the default and prejudice”or that he is actually innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.”Carvajal, 633 F.3d at 104. Finally, Petitioner should note that although the Court is giving him another opportunity to submit a petition, the Court’s patience is not limitless. Petitioner has bombarded the Court with documents relating to this conviction, but has not filed a habeas corpuspetition as directed. The Court can only consider Petitioner’s grounds for relief in an actual petition. At this junction, Petitioner is only granted leave to submit a petition. Any other submission will result in the

dismissal of this action. C. Application for Counsel Petitioner also submits a second request for the Court to appoint him counsel. (ECF No. 8). For the same reasons stated in the Court’s November 15, 2019 order, that application is denied, without prejudice to Petitioner’s refiling it at a later date. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitionerand note service on the docket. The Court denies Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.(ECF No. 9.) The Court grants Petitioner leave to file a habeas corpus petition containing the information specified. A“Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §2254” form is attached to this order.Petitioner should complete the form as

specified above. The petition must be submitted to the Clerk’s Office within 30days of the date of this order and be labeled with docket number 19-CV-0707 (CM).

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)
Maleng v. Cook
490 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Carvajal v. Artus
633 F.3d 95 (Second Circuit, 2011)
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-2020.