Williams v. Shanley

• Decision Date: 12 December 2022
• Docket Number: 20-CV-688 (JLS) (MJR)
• Parties: ISIAH WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. RAYMOND SHANLEY, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

ISIAH WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
RAYMOND SHANLEY, Respondent.

No. 20-CV-688 (JLS) (MJR)

United States District Court, W.D. New York

December 12, 2022

DECISION AND ORDER

JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se petitioner Isiah Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction in New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County on two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, and one count of scheme to defraud in the second degree. Dkt. 1. Respondent filed an answer and response in opposition to the petition on December 14, 2020. Dkt. 20. Williams subsequently fded a motion for stay-and-abeyance of his Section 2254 petition. Dkt. 21.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R)" issued by United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer (Dkt. 35) recommending that this Court grant Williams's motion to stay; Williams's motion to lift the stay (Dkt. 44); Williams's motion for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. 45); Williams's motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 47); and Williams's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 48). Williams also filed an Amended Petition. Dkt. 39.

1

For the reasons below, the Court rejects the R&R and denies Williams's application for a stay and abeyance, as well as the motion to lift the stay. The Court further finds that Williams's Amended Petition-filed after the R&R was issued- contains exhausted, timely claims, and grants leave to amend as to that existing Amended Petition. The Court holds Williams's motion to appoint counsel and motion for an evidentiary hearing in abeyance until the Court addresses the merits of the Amended Petition. The Court grants the motion for leave to proceed in form pauperis.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Court provides a brief summary of the relevant factual background and procedural history for purposes of this decision and order.

I. STATE COURT CONVICTIONS

Williams was first convicted in November 2009, after representing himself at trial. A New York appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in allowing Williams to act as his own counsel, reversed the conviction, and ordered a new trial. People v. Williams, 101 A.D.3d 1734, 957 N.Y.S.2d 548 (4th Dep't 2012).

At the June 2015 retrial, Williams-this time represented by counsel-was convicted of one count of second-degree scheme to defraud and two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument. Dkt. 1, at 1. Williams filed an unsuccessful pro se appeal of that conviction. Dkt. 1, at 38-41, 72; People v. Williams, 163 A.D.3d 1422, 80 N.Y.S.3d 610 (4^th Dep't 2018). Prior to filing this proceeding, Williams also filed four unsuccessful pro se motions to vacate his

2

conviction under New York Criminal Procedure Law ("CPL") § 440.10. Dkt. 1, at 3-5.

II. THE ORIGINAL PETITION

On June 9, 2020, Williams commenced this proceeding and filed his pro se petition, which raised numerous claims alleging prosecutorial misconduct, defects in the grand jury proceeding, withholding of exculpatory information, error by the trial court regarding Williams's motion for substitute counsel, and ineffective assistance of counsel. See generally Dkt. 1, at 5-31.

Respondent answered the habeas petition on December 14, 2020. Dkt. 20. Respondent argued that the Court should dismiss the petition because, to the extent Williams's claims are reviewable and cognizable, they lack merit. See generally Dkt. 20-1. Respondent did not argue that Williams had failed to exhaust his state remedies as to any of his claims. See generally id.

III. THE MOTION TO STAY

Williams moved for a fifth time to vacate his conviction, in papers dated November 21, 2020, and which were not received by the Monroe County District Attorney's Office until December 23, 2020. Dkt. 21, at 15-128.

On January 4, 2021, Williams moved to stay the instant petition so that he could complete his litigation of his fifth CPL § 440 motion to vacate his conviction. See generally Dkt. 21. Specifically, Williams stated that the following claims must be submitted to the state court: (1) an "Actual Innocence Claim"; (2) a newly discovered evidence claim related to alibi witness exculpatory material; (3) violation

3

of the right against self-incrimination claim; and (4) an ineffective assistance of counsel claim related to counsel's failures as to the above-mentioned newly discovered alibi evidence claim and violation of the right against self-incrimination claim. Id. at 3. Williams also requested leave to later amend the petition to add additional claims. Id. at 2.

IV. THE R&R AND SUBSEQUENT FILINGS

On September 23, 2021, Magistrate Judge Roemer issued an R&R recommending that this Court grant the motion for a stay. Dkt. 35. The R&R acknowledged that the petition was not "mixed," but found "good cause" existed for granting a stay because Williams had identified "newly discovered evidence," Williams's pending CPL § 440 claims were not plainly meritless, and there was no evidence of intentional delay. See generally Id. The R&R provided that Petitioner should file an amended petition within thirty days of the entry of the R&R, and that, assuming no objections were filed, the stay would become effective. Id. at 8-9. The R&R further provided that Williams must advise the Court of the status of the state court proceedings to exhaust his additional claims, and return to this Court upon completion of those state court proceedings by filing a motion to vacate the stay. Id. at 9.

Respondent timely objected to the R&R's recommendation that this Court stay the petition. Dkt. 36. Williams's reply (Dkt. 38) to Respondent's objections was received by this Court on October 13, 2021-as was Williams's amended petition (Dkt. 39) and letter regarding the status of the state court proceedings

4

(Dkt. 40), consistent with the R&R's instructions. Williams later filed a motion to lift the stay-received by this Court on May 11, 2022-indicating that he has now fully exhausted his amended claims in state court. Dkt. 44. Williams further filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. 45), a motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 47), and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 48).

DISCUSSION

I. REVIEW OF THE R&R RECOMMENDING A STAY

A. Review of the R&R

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). It must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). As for non-dispositive matters, the district judge in the case must consider timely objections to a magistrate judge's order and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).

B. Exhaustion

Before a federal court "can consider a habeas application brought by a state prisoner, the habeas applicant must exhaust all of his state remedies." Carvajal v. Artus, 633 F.3d 95, 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A)). To afford the state courts the '"opportunity to pass upon and correct' alleged violations of. .. [his] federal rights[,]" Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (quoting Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 250 (1971)), a habeas petitioner must "fairly

5

present[ ]" his claims in federal constitutional terms, such as by "cit[ing] to specific provisions of the U.S. Constitution in his state court brief[.]" Davis v. Strack, 270 F.3d 111, 122 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). The requirement that "the state court have been given a reasonable opportunity to pass on the federal habeas claim is satisfied if the legal basis of the claim made in state court was the 'substantial equivalent5 of that of the habeas claim." Daye v. Att'y Gen of the State of N.Y., 696 F.2d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 1982) (en banc) (quoting Picard, 404 U.S. at 278).

A petitioner is not deemed to have exhausted his state remedies if he retains the right under state law to raise, by any available procedure, the federal question presented in the habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). The Supreme Court "has interpreted this as requiring petitioners to invoke 'one complete round of the State's established appellate review process,' including an application to 'a state court of last resort when that court has discretionary control over its docket.'" Alston v. Donnelly, 461 F.Supp.2d 112, 120 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (quoting O'Sullivan u. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 843, 845 (1999)).

C. Stay and Abeyance

1. Rhines and "Good Cause"

Before Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), several circuit courts, including the Second Circuit, used a stay-and-abeyance approach when confronted with a "mixed petition"-that is, a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition includes some claims that have not been properly exhausted in state court. See Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374 (2d Cir. 2001). In Rhines, the Supreme Court approved of the stay-and-

6

...