Paddytole v. Artus
7:14-cv-06280
S.D.N.Y.Oct 17, 2017Background
- Kenneth A. Paddyfote, III filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his October 12, 2011 conviction in Dutchess County Court for second-degree criminal possession of a weapon.
- Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) recommending denial of the petition in its entirety.
- No objections to the R&R were filed by petitioner within the 14-day period; the district court therefore reviewed the R&R for clear error and conducted de novo review as required for dispositive matters with timely objections (none here).
- The court applied the deferential AEDPA standards: relief is available only if the state court decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or involved an unreasonable factual determination; procedural defaults require cause and prejudice or actual innocence to excuse.
- The district court found Judge McCarthy’s R&R thorough and without error, adopted it as the opinion of the court, denied the habeas petition, and directed entry of judgment against petitioner.
- The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying in forma pauperis status for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner is entitled to habeas relief under AEDPA | State conviction violated federal law/rights (asserted in petition) | State court ruling was correct or not reviewable given procedural defaults; AEDPA deference applies | Petition denied; R&R adopted; petitioner failed to show entitlement under §2254 standards |
| Whether any procedural default bars federal review | Default excused by cause and prejudice or actual innocence (petitioner) | No showing of cause/prejudice or actual innocence; default stands | Court applied procedural default principles; no basis to excuse default |
| Whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law | State court decision was contrary to federal law (petitioner) | State court decision not contrary/unreasonable under AEDPA | Court concluded petitioner did not meet AEDPA standard |
| Whether certificate of appealability should issue | Petitioner entitled to COA to appeal denial | No substantial showing of denial of constitutional right | COA denied; appeal not in good faith; IFP denied for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (standard for adopting R&R absent timely objections)
- Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (review standard for R&R adoption without objections)
- Ortiz v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (conclusory objections treated as waived; clear-error review applies)
- Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1994) (liberal reading of pro se pleadings to raise strongest arguments)
- Clark v. Perez, 510 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2008) (procedural default and excuse standards: cause and prejudice or actual innocence)
- Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for certificate of appealability/substantial showing)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (in forma pauperis appeal good-faith standard)