Williams v. Justices of NYS Sup. Ct.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 3, 2019
Docket1:19-cv-02476-KPF-SDA
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Justices of NYS Sup. Ct. (Williams v. Justices of NYS Sup. Ct.) 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
Williams v. Justices of NYS Sup. Ct., (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOMO WILLIAMS, Petitioner, -against- 19-CV-2476(CM) JUSTICES OF NYS SUP. CT. APP. DIV. 1ST. ORDERTO AMEND DEPT.; OFFICE OF THE APPELLATE DEFENDER; NYPD; NY CNTY D.A., Respondents. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner,appearing pro seand having paid the filing fee, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254,challenging his November 26, 2013conviction in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. For the following reasons, 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 ofhabeas corpuson “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; seeAcosta v. Nunez, 221 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro sepleadings 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); seeGreen v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, a pro selitigant 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 following facts are taken from the petition and accompanying papers: Petitioner

challenges his November 26, 2013 judgment of convictionfor possession of fraudulent documents in the New York State Supreme Court, New York County.1 Petitioner was sentenced to two to eight years of imprisonment, but was released from custody in 2015. Petitioner appealed his conviction to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department (Appellate Division), and on September 27, 2018, that court issued a decision granting the Office of the Appellate Defender’s request to be relieved as counsel and dismissing the appeal.2 (ECF No. 1 at 16.) Petitioner brings this habeasaction asserting the following grounds for relief: (1) he was denied the right to directly appeal his conviction; (2)the Appellate Division improperly assigned him counsel without his consent and then granted counsel’s motion to dismiss his appeal

although counsel failed to communicate with him; and (3) he was denied the right to submit “pro sebrief arguments.” (Id. at 10.)Petitioner would like the Court to determine that he was denied

1 Petitioner has filed several habeaspetitions first challenging his criminal proceedings and then his conviction on the same fraud charges. See Williams v. Justices of App. Div. 1st Dep’t., No. 14-CV-5522 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2015)(dismissing habeas grounds for failure to exhaust); Williams v. NYCDOC Commissioner, No. 14-CV-0088 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2014) (dismissing § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust); Williams v. Rikers Island Warden, No. 12-CV- 0221 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2012) (dismissing challenge to pending criminal proceedings on fraud charges for failure to exhaust). 2The Appellate Division’s decision stated that on May 31, 2016, it granted Petitioner’s leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person and assigned the Appellate Defender as counsel. (ECF No. 1 at 16.) access to a state-court appeal for this conviction; find that his prior convictions were unconstitutional;3 preserve all evidence in state custody that belongs to him; and grant any and all other relief that the Court “deems is just and fit.” (Id. at 15.) DISCUSSION A. CustodyRequirement The 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 thehabeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989); see also Nowakowski v. New York, 835 F.3d 210, 215 (2d Cir. 2016) (“In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction over a habeas petition, the petitioner must be ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court’ at the time that petition is filed.”). Habeas corpusrelief is not restricted only to situations in which the applicant is in actual, physical custody,Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 300 (1984), but it is available so long as a petitioner suffers from substantial restraints not shared by the general

public, see,e.g.,Maleng, 490 U.S. at 491; Hensley v. Mun. Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973)

3 Petitioner has also filed multiple§2254habeas petitions challenging his convictions on burglary-related charges following two separate jury trials in the Westchester County Court in 2003.See Williams v. Comm’r of NYSDOC, No. 07-CV-5496 (WHP)(FM) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2011) (denying habeas petition challenging 2003 Westchester County burglary conviction); Williams v. NYSDOC., No. 07-CV-5514 (WHP) (FM) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2011) (same); Williams v. Pataki, No. 07-CV-1082 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2007) (dismissing §2254 petition challenging burglary-related convictions for failure to exhaust); Williams v. Allard, No. 05CV-435 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2005)(same); Williams v. Pelzer, No. 05-CV-8241 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2005) (same). Petitioner continues to contend that the 2003convictions are unconstitutional and to seek to overturn them. As this petition ostensibly challenges Petitioner’s 2013 conviction for fraud, the Court declines to address any claims with respect to Petitioner’s 2003 convictions. (“The custody requirement of the habeas corpus statute is designed to preserve the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy for severe restraints on individual liberty.”).Courts have allowed state petitioners on bail, parole, supervised release, and those released on their own recognizance who are subjected to restraints to pursue such petitions.See, e.g.,Hensley, 411 U.S. at 351 (a petitioner who has been released on his own recognizance pending execution of his sentence is

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)
Maleng v. Cook
490 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1989)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel
526 U.S. 838 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Sean Earley v. Timothy Murray
451 F.3d 71 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Valdez v. Hulihan
640 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Ramos v. Walker
88 F. Supp. 2d 233 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Nowakowski v. New York
835 F.3d 210 (Second Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. Justices of NYS Sup. Ct., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-justices-of-nys-sup-ct-nysd-2019.