From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mays v. McIntosh

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 29, 2021
21-CV-6482 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2021)

Opinion

21-CV-6482 (LTS)

12-29-2021

SAMUEL D. MAYS, Petitioner, v. DONITA McINTOSH, Superintendent of Bare Hill Correctional Facility, Respondent.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:

Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated in Bare Hill Correctional Facility, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP). He brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a “violation of parole.” By order dated October 1, 2021, the Court directed Petitioner to file an amended petition that (1) identifies the conviction he seeks to challenge; (2) states his grounds for relief; and (3) details the steps he has taken to fully exhaust the grounds in the New York courts. In response to the Court's order, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus captioned for the State of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, and the Court has reviewed it. The action is dismissed for the reasons set forth below.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on “behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is 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; see Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them “to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (citations omitted); see Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, a pro se litigant is not exempt “from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Tragath v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983).

DISCUSSION

The document that Petitioner filed in response to the Court's October 1, 2021 order to amend fails to address the deficiencies in his original petition. Like his original submission, this purported amended submission also does not conform to the requirements of Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner fails to identify the conviction he seeks to challenge, and he fails to specify his grounds for relief and the supporting facts. Additionally, it remains unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted his state-court remedies with respect to the conviction he seeks to challenge.

Because the amended petition does not conform to the requirements of Rule 2(c) and because it remains unclear whether Petitioner has exhausted his state-court remedies with respect to the conviction he seeks to challenge, the amended petition is denied.

District courts generally grant a pro se petitioner leave to amend a petition to cure its defects but leave to amend may be denied if the petitioner has already been given an opportunity to amend but has failed to cure the petition's deficiencies. See Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Because the defects in Petitioner's amended petition cannot be cured with a further amendment, the Court declines to grant Petitioner another opportunity to amend.

CONCLUSION

The amended petition, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is denied.

Because Petitioner has not at this time made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and note service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Mays v. McIntosh

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 29, 2021
21-CV-6482 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2021)
Case details for

Mays v. McIntosh

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL D. MAYS, Petitioner, v. DONITA McINTOSH, Superintendent of Bare…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Dec 29, 2021

Citations

21-CV-6482 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2021)