Opinion
1:22-cv-02794 (JPC) (SDA)
12-21-2022
Rafael A. Jones, Petitioner, v. Joseph Caputo, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STEWART D. AARON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO THE HONORABLE JOHN P. CRONAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pro se Petitioner Rafael A. Jones (“Petitioner” or “Jones”), currently incarcerated at the George R. Vierno Center (“GRVC”) in New York State, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Pet., ECF No. 2.) For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully recommend that the Petition be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
Jones was arrested on September 14, 2021, was charged with attempted murder in the second degree (No. CR-013906-21BX) and currently is detained in state court on those pending charges. See Jones v. Caputo, No. 22-CV-02041 (LTS), 2022 WL 1062886, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2022). On January 6, 2022, in the underlying state criminal proceedings, the state court ordered Jones to be evaluated pursuant to Article 730 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law to determine whether he was mentally fit to proceed in his criminal trial. See Jones v. Sullivan, No. 22-CV-02794 (JPC) (SDA), 2022 WL 3716270, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2022). In an Order of Commitment, dated February 22, 2022, the state court determined that Jones was an incapacitated person and committed Petitioner to the custody of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health (“OMH”). See id.
The Petition in this case was filed on April 5, 2022.(See Pet.) By Order, dated May 10, 2022, the Court directed me to determine Jones's competency and, if appropriate, to appoint a guardian ad litem, pursuant to Rule 17(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or pro bono counsel. (5/10/22 Order of Ref., ECF No. 14.) On June 24, 2022, the clinical director of the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center determined that Jones was fit to proceed to trial in the state criminal proceedings. See Jones, 2022 WL 3716270, at *1. On August 29, 2022, I found that Petitioner was competent and, thus, that a guardian ad litem should not be appointed. See id. at *4.
Jones filed in this Court numerous prior actions regarding his same state court detention, each of which was dismissed. See Jones v. Carter, No. 21-CV-09571 (LTS), 2022 WL 465056, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2022), reconsideration denied, 2022 WL 305186 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2022); Jones v. Walker, No. 22-CV-00993 (LTS), 2022 WL 623584, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2022), reconsideration denied, 2022 WL 17076746 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022); Jones v. Caputo, No. 22-CV-01640 (LTS), 2022 WL 623499, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2022).
In addition, in my August 29, 2022 ruling, I permitted Petitioner to make a further submission regarding his argument that his failure to exhaust should be excused given the length of time that he had been detained while awaiting trial. See Jones, 2022 WL 3716270, at *4.
On October 31, 2022, the Court was advised that, on September 19, 2022, two physicians with the Bronx Forensic Psychiatric Court Clinic issued separate reports based on their evaluations of Jones and found him unfit to proceed to trial and that, on October 7, 2022, Justice Clancy in Bronx Supreme Court (where Jones's underlying state criminal case is pending) adopted such findings. (See 10/31/22 Resp. Ltr., ECF No. 65, at 3.)
By Order, dated November 14, 2022, the Court directed OMH to file under seal the Bronx Forensic Psychiatric Court Clinic physicians' reports regarding Jones's competency referred to in Respondent's October 31 letter. (11/14/2022 Order, ECF No. 69.) On November 29, 2022, the physicians' reports were filed under seal. (See 11/29/22 Weiss Ltr., ECF No. 71 & attachments.)
On December 2, 2022, based upon review of the physicians' reports, the Court found that Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applied and appointed counsel for Jones, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, in the interests of justice. (See 12/2/22 Order, ECF No. 73.) In the December 2 Order, the Court directed appointed counsel to “address Petitioner's argument that his failure to exhaust his state court remedies should be excused given the length of time that Petitioner has been detained while awaiting trial,” (See id. at 3.) On December 5, 2022, Attorney Bobbi C. Sternheim appeared on behalf of Jones. (See Not. of Appearance, ECF No. 74.)
On December 16, 2022, Respondent's counsel filed a letter arguing that the Petition should be dismissed, noting, among other things, that Jones had failed to exhaust his state court remedies. (See 12/16/22 Weiss Ltr., ECF No. 78.) On December 20, 2022, a telephone conference was held in which Attorney Sternheim appeared on behalf of Jones. (See 12/20/22 Tr., ECF No. 79.) During the conference, Attorney Sternheim stated: “Based upon the state of the law and the relief requested, I do not feel that Mr. Jones has exhausted his state remedies, nor do I see a reason for an extraordinary relief waiver in that regard.” (See id. at 4.) The Court agrees.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), as amended by AEDPA, a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment only may prevail on an application for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his or her custody violates “the constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The petitioner must show that the state court decision, having been adjudicated on the merits, is either “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law” or is “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Before filing a habeas petition in federal court, a petitioner first must exhaust available state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); see United States ex rel. Scranton v. New York, 532 F.2d 292, 294 (2d Cir. 1976).
In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the United States Supreme Court held that a federal court may not enjoin a pending state court criminal proceeding in the absence of special circumstances suggesting bad faith, harassment or irreparable injury that is both serious and immediate. See Heicklen v. Morgenthau, 378 Fed.Appx. 1, 2 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1973)). Federal courts generally abstain from intervening in state criminal proceedings “‘under the principle known as comity [because] a federal district court has no power to intervene in the internal procedures of the state courts.'” Kaufman v. Kaye, 466 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Wallace v. Kern, 481 F.2d 621, 622 (2d Cir. 1973)).
DISCUSSION
For the reasons stated in Chief Judge Swain's previous rulings in the prior actions brought by Petitioner, “[b]ecause Petitioner has not been convicted, no judgment has entered, and he is not in custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court; a section 2254 petition is . . . not available to him to seek relief. See Jones, 2022 WL 623499, at *2. Moreover, the Petition is barred by the Younger doctrine. See Jones, 2022 WL 623584, at *2.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, I respectfully recommend that Jones's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
NOTICE OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The parties shall have fourteen (14) days (including weekends and holidays) from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d) (adding three additional days when service is made under Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D) or (F)). A party may respond to another party's objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Such objections, and any response to objections, shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(d), 72(b). Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be addressed to Judge Cronan.
FAILURE TO OBJECT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(d), 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).