Simpson v. Melecio

• Decision Date: 28 March 2023
• Docket Number: 9:20-CV-00036 (MAD/DJS)
• Parties: JOHNNIE SIMPSON, Petitioner, v. MR. MELECIO, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

1

JOHNNIE SIMPSON, Petitioner,
v.
MR. MELECIO, Respondent.

No. 9:20-CV-00036 (MAD/DJS)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 28, 2023

PAUL B. LYONS, AAG

ORDER

MAE A. D'AGOSTINO, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Johnnie Simpson commenced this action pro se on January 10, 2020, seeking a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner challenges his 2015 conviction upon his guilty plea of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. See id. at 1. Broadly stated, Petitioner argues that his conviction should be set aside because (1) his counsel had "an actual conflict of interest"; (2) he "was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel"; (3) the trial court failed to hear his motion to withdraw his guilty plea; and (4) a "prosecutor's witness committed a number of material forms of perjury." Id. at 16-24 (capitalization omitted). Respondent filed opposition to

2

the petition, see Dkt. No. 14, and Petitioner filed a traverse in further support of the petition, see Dkt. No. 20. In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated June 13, 2022, Magistrate Judge Stewart recommended that the Court deny and dismiss the petition in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 21.

Neither party has filed any objections to the Report-Recommendation and Order. When a party declines to file objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation or files "[g]eneral or conclusory objections or objections which merely recite the same arguments [presented] to the magistrate judge," the district court reviews those recommendations for clear error. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations and footnote omitted); see alsoMcAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F.Supp.2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). After the appropriate review, "the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

"[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than that accorded to 'formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Govan v. Campbell, 289 F.Supp.2d 289, 295 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (additional citations omitted). The Second Circuit has held that courts are obligated to "'make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants'" from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights merely because they lack a legal education. Govan, 289 F.Supp.2d at 295 (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)).

The Court does not discern any clear error in the Report-Recommendation and Order. Initially, Magistrate Judge Stewart correctly concluded that Petitioner's conflict of interest arguments are unavailing because (1) Petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived any possible conflict after the state court explained, on the record, the potential ramifications of continued

3

representation by his counsel, carefully ascertained whether Petitioner was aware of the potential risks, and afforded Petitioner an additional two weeks to discuss this issue with his counsel or seek alternative representation, see Kopp v. Fischer, 811 F.Supp.2d 696, 704 (W.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting United States v. Curcio, 680 F.2d 881, 888-90 (2d Cir. 1982); People v. Gomberg, 38 N.Y.2d 307, 313-14 (1975)); and (2) Petitioner did not have an actual or potential conflict of interest with his counsel, who never had the opportunity to cross examine the confidential informant he briefly represented for purposes of arraignment and setting bail because Petitioner's case never went to trial and the confidential informant was not available during earlier proceedings, see United States v. Mallard, 164 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 1998) (determining that no conflict of interest occurred where there was no evidence that the defendant "was prejudiced or that his attorney's performance was affected by the fact that a witness in a trial that never happened was represented by another attorney who worked for the same Legal Aid organization as [the defendant's counsel").

Magistrate Judge Stewart also soundly determined...