Peoples v. NYS BOP Chairman
1:23-cv-04854-BMC
| E.D.N.Y | Oct 2, 2023Background
- Petitioner pleaded guilty over 20 years ago to two counts of rape in Queens County, New York; entered post-release supervision in 2019.
- A parole-violation warrant was lodged June 18, 2021; petitioner was declared delinquent June 24, 2021; an ALJ found one violation and ordered revocation and return to custody.
- The New York State Board of Parole affirmed the ALJ’s revocation on February 1, 2023.
- Petitioner filed a pro se Article 70 habeas petition in New York Supreme Court (Clinton County) on February 16, 2023; counsel was appointed and the State moved to dismiss for improper service.
- Counsel moved to convert the filing to an Article 78 proceeding; the state court converted the petition on May 26, 2023; the State renewed its improper-service challenge.
- Petitioner later sought to proceed pro se and to withdraw the Article 78 petition; that motion (and the State’s motion to dismiss) remain pending in state court. The federal habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust; no COA issued and IFP on appeal denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal habeas may proceed without exhaustion of state remedies | Petitioner contends federal relief should be allowed now despite pending state proceedings | AG argues petitioner has not exhausted state remedies and claims are premature | Court held exhaustion required; dismissed petition without prejudice |
| Effect of petitioner’s move to withdraw Article 78 (timeliness/consequences) | Petitioner says he wants to withdraw the Article 78 and fears refiling will be time-barred | State stresses petitioner must pursue available state review and cannot manufacture non-exhaustion | Court warned withdrawal could produce procedural default/time bar and cannot justify bypassing exhaustion |
| Applicability of actual-innocence exception to exhaustion/procedural default | Petitioner asserted factual/actual innocence based on evidentiary issues with telephone-call evidence | State disputed sufficiency of any innocence showing to excuse exhaustion/default | Court found petitioner’s showing did not meet the threshold for actual-innocence relief and did not reach that exception |
| Whether petitioner need not pursue state collateral procedures under O’Sullivan | Petitioner relied on O’Sullivan to argue he need not re-present claims via state collateral review | State noted New York provides direct review via Article 78 and appellate review; petitioner must use that single avenue | Court held O’Sullivan inapposite; petitioner must pursue the Article 78 direct-review route before federal habeas |
Key Cases Cited
- Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (establishes exhaustion/fair-presentation requirement for federal habeas)
- Bierenbaum v. Graham, 607 F.3d 36 (2d Cir.) (defines fair presentation of claims to state courts)
- Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434 (2d Cir.) (same)
- Cook v. N.Y.S. Div. of Parole, 321 F.3d 274 (2d Cir.) (parole-revocation habeas subject to exhaustion)
- Guida v. Nelson, 603 F.2d 261 (2d Cir.) (release claims still require exhaustion)
- Scales v. N.Y.S. Div. of Parole, 396 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y.) (Article 78 is the proper state procedure for parole revocation review)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (addresses exhaustion to state highest court)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 724 (procedural default and miscarriage-of-justice doctrine)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (standard for in forma pauperis status on appeal)