Opinion
19-CV-3841 (LLS)
12-04-2020
CARL DOUGLAS WELLS, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Respondent.
ORDER :
On May 21, 2019, the Court dismissed this action, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, because Petitioner challenged: (1) a conviction for which he was no longer in custody; (2) his current conviction, for which he was in custody but had not yet exhausted his state-court remedies; and (3) the execution of his current sentence, for which he also had not exhausted his state-court remedies. (ECF No. 11.) The Court explained in the order that should Petitioner seek to challenge his current conviction or the execution of his current sentence, he may do so in a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after exhausting his state-court remedies. (Id.)
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the Court denied on July 25, 2019, because Petitioner continued to challenge his convictions and the execution of his sentence, not the integrity of the habeas corpus proceedings. (ECF No. 17); see Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that "relief under Rule 60(b) is available for a prior habeas proceeding only when the Rule 60(b) motion attacks the integrity of the previous habeas proceeding rather than the underlying criminal conviction"). Petitioner appealed the order of dismissal and the order denying the motion for reconsideration, and on June 29, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal because Petitioner did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (ECF No. 20.)
Since the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, Petitioner has filed two letters in this Court, reiterating his claims. But as the Court explained in the May 21, 2019 order of dismissal, there is nothing this Court can do in this proceeding. After Petitioner exhausts all of his available state-court remedies, he may file a new petition under § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (challenges to the validity of prison administrative actions that affect the fact or length of the prisoner's confinement are properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254).
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner, note service on the docket, and terminate all motions in this action. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 4, 2020
New York, New York
/s/_________
Louis L. Stanton
U.S.D.J.