Taylor v. Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filing
3
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, the 1 petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied. Any claims under Section 1983 are dismissed without prejudice. As petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this Order on plaintiff and note service on the docket and close this case. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 10/7/2013. (Tsai, Denise)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------X
MICHAEL TAYLOR,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff,
-against-
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
13-CV-4621 (KAM)(RLM)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK,
Defendant.
----------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On August 13, 2013, pro se plaintiff Michael Taylor
(“Taylor”), who is incarcerated at South Woods State Prison in
Bridgeton, New Jersey, filed what he labels a “petition” seeking
a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the Supreme Court of the
State of New York failed to accept (1) applications to proceed
in forma pauperis pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and
Rules § 1101(f) in 2012, and (2) motions in connection with his
state criminal conviction pursuant to New York Criminal
Procedure Law § 440.10 in 2006.
to commence this action.
Petitioner paid the filing fee
For the reasons set forth below, the
petition is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
On August 13, 2013, Taylor filed this habeas petition
naming the Supreme Court of the State of New York as respondent.
Petitioner alleges that the Supreme Court of New York failed to
1
assign index numbers to motions he sought to file, thereby
denying him his constitutional right of access to the courts
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Specifically,
petitioner alleges that on May 23, 2012, the Supreme Court of
New York, King’s County, returned petitioner’s applications to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to New York State Civil
Practice Law and Rules Section 1101(f), thus violating its
“mandatory duty to file and submit [them] for consideration.”
(ECF No. 1, Petition dated 8/13/13 (“Pet.”), at 1.)
Petitioner
seeks a writ of habeas corpus that includes an inquiry into his
custody and release from custody. (Pet. at 1.)
Petitioner has been convicted of crimes in New Jersey
and New York, including two convictions in this court.
See
United States v. Taylor, No. 93-CR-671 (CPS) (E.D.N.Y. March 2,
1994); United States v. Taylor, No. CR-02-0097 (CPS), 2007 WL
538518 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2007).
He has filed at least ten pro
se civil actions in this court in the last eleven years, all of
which have been habeas petitions and many of which have
complained of prison conditions such as the unavailability of
Aveeno lotion or magazines and newspapers in the facilities in
which he was housed.
denied.
Several petitions have been dismissed or
See, e.g., Taylor v. United States, No. 04-CV-1352
(CPS) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2004); Taylor v. Superintendent of the
2
Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), No. 06-CV-2720 (CPS)
(E.D.N.Y. June 19, 2006); Taylor v. United States, No. 05-CV1322 (CPS) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2007).
Most of his petitions have
been transferred to New Jersey where he was incarcerated at the
time he filed most of his petitions in this Court.
See, e.g.,
Taylor v. Union Cty. Correctional Facility, No. 02-CV-811 (ARR);
Taylor v. Duffy, No. 04-CV-4133-35 (FB); Taylor v. Merola, No.
04-CV-4137 (FB); Taylor v. Holmes, No. 12-CV-4352 (DLI).
The court also notes that the instant habeas petition
is very similar to the habeas petition filed in Taylor v.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, No. 06-CV-4501 (NGG).
That prior petition, filed August 17, 2006, named the same
respondent, the Supreme Court of New York; stated one of the
same claims, that is, petitioner had been unable to file
documents with the Supreme Court of the State of New York in
2006; and sought the same relief, i.e., that there be an inquiry
into Petitioner’s custody and that he be released from custody. 1
That petition was dismissed by order dated February 14, 2007.
DISCUSSION
Because petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court
must liberally construe the pro se litigant’s submissions.
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.
1
Petitioner has sought the same remedy in many of the habeas
petitions he filed in this court. See, e.g., Taylor v. Merola, No. 04-CV4137 (FB); Taylor v. Duffy, No. 04-CV-4133 (FB).
3
2006).
If a pro se litigant pleads facts that would entitle him
to relief, that petition should not be dismissed merely because
the litigant did not correctly identify the statute or rule of
law that provides the relief he seeks.
Thompson v. Choinski,
525 F.3d 205, 209 (2d Cir. 2008).
A. Habeas Petition
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2242 provides that an application
for a writ of habeas corpus shall “name . . . the person who has
custody over” the petitioner, and § 2243 provides that the writ,
or order to show cause, “shall be directed to the person having
custody of the person detained.” See also Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (“The default rule is that the proper
respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is
being detained . . .”).
“A writ of habeas corpus functions to
grant relief from unlawful custody or imprisonment and must be
sought against the authority that has custody of the
petitioner.”
Bell v. I.N.S., 292 F. Supp. 2d 370, 373 (D. Conn.
2003) (citing Campillo v. Sullivan, 853 F.2d 593, 595 (8th Cir.
1988)).
“In order for a court to entertain a habeas corpus
action, it must have jurisdiction over the petitioner's
custodian.”
Billiteri v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948
(2d Cir. 1976); Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Kentucky,
410 U.S. 484, 495 (noting that because the writ is directed to
4
and served upon the custodian, the court issuing the writ must
have jurisdiction over the custodian).
Where a habeas
petitioner fails to name the custodian of his confinement or the
court lacks jurisdiction over the proper custodian, the “case
must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Id.
Thus, in
Billiteri, the Second Circuit dismissed the habeas petitioner’s
case for lack of jurisdiction where petitioner named the United
States Board of Parole, and not the warden of petitioner’s
penitentiary in Pennsylvania, as the respondent, commenting that
“[i]t would have imposed no great hardship on Billiteri to have
brought his action against the Warden in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, as he should have done.”
Id.
Here, petitioner has named as Respondent the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, which is not petitioner’s
current custodian.
Petitioner’s custodian is the warden of the
South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, where he is
incarcerated.
Petitioner not only fails to name his current
custodian as respondent, but this court does not have
jurisdiction to issue a writ directed to the proper custodian.
Billiteri, 541 F.2d at 948.
Accordingly, the court is without
jurisdiction to grant petitioner the habeas relief he has
requested. 2
2
The court notes that should petitioner choose to re-file his habeas
petition, he should do so in the appropriate jurisdiction where he is
5
Moreover, even granting the pleadings a liberal
interpretation, the petition does not allege facts that would
entitle Taylor to his requested relief.
Taylor does not claim
that prison officials interfered with his efforts to file
pleadings in New York State Court.
Neither does the Supreme
Court of the State of New York’s allegedly improper conduct
render petitioner’s confinement unconstitutional.
Therefore,
because this petition does not name the proper respondent, nor
does it relate to the fact or duration of Taylor’s confinement,
habeas corpus relief is inappropriate.
The petition is
therefore dismissed.
B.
Civil Rights Complaint 3
Although a district court may construe a habeas
petition as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, see
Moorish Sci. Temple of America, Inc. v. Smith, 693 F.2d 987, 989
(2d Cir. 1982) (finding error in district court's sua sponte
dismissal of pro se prisoner's habeas petition without
considering possible claims under § 1983), the court declines to
do so here.
Unlike the petitioner in Moorish Science Temple,
who alleged sufficient facts to establish two non-frivolous
claims under § 1983, 693 F. 2d at 989-90, here, petitioner fails
incarcerated.
3
Since there is no decision in this Circuit precluding a
petitioner from seeking relief under both a habeas statute and § 1983 in a
single pleading, the Court also reviews plaintiff’s civil rights claim.
Thompson v. Choinski, 525 F.3d 205, 209-10 (2d Cir. 2008).
6
to allege facts showing that he sustained a federal
constitutional violation.
See Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351
(2d Cir. 2003); Doe v. Green, 593 F. Supp. 2d 523, 537–38
(W.D.N.Y. 2009) (noting that to support a claim of denial of
access to courts, plaintiff “must allege facts indicating that
(1) the defendant ‘deliberately and maliciously interfered’ with
that access, and (2) the interference resulted in injury to the
plaintiff.”) (quoting Kampfer v. Vonderheide, 216 F. Supp. 2d 4,
7 (N.D.N.Y. 2002)).
Additionally, it is doubtful whether the prisoner is
willing to pay the $400.00 civil action filing fee to pursue his
claims.
The filing fee for a habeas petition is $5.00, and
inmates filing a habeas petition who are granted in forma
pauperis status do not have to pay the filing fee.
See Santana
v. United States, 98 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding that the
filing fee payment requirements of Prison Litigation Reform Act
do not apply to in forma pauperis habeas corpus petitions and
appeals).
In contrast to the filing fee for a habeas petition,
the filing fee for a complaint, including a complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is $400.00.
Inmates filing a civil rights
complaint who proceed in forma pauperis are required to pay the
entire filing fee in monthly installments, which are deducted
from the prison account.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
7
In addition, if
a prisoner has, on three or more occasions while incarcerated,
brought an action or appeal in a federal court that was
dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or
failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, then
the prisoner may not bring another action in forma pauperis
unless he or she is in imminent danger of serious physical
injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Thus, this court will not sua sponte re-characterize
the pleading as a civil complaint.
See Davis v. Fisher, No. 13-
CV-1024, 2013 WL 3974520, at *3 n.1 (D. Minn. Aug. 1, 2013)
(“Petitioner cannot be excused from paying the $350.00 filing
fee by simply calling his pleading a habeas corpus petition;
otherwise any prisoner could submit his non-habeas civil rights
claims on a habeas petition and pay only a $5.00 filing fee, and
then wait for the court to construe his ‘petition’ to be a civil
complaint. The $350.00 filing fee prescribed by Congress for
non-habeas civil actions cannot be so easily circumvented.”).
If petitioner chooses to bring a civil complaint, he may do so
by filing a complaint in a new docket number and either paying
the filing fee or filing an application to proceed in forma
pauperis.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Taylor’s petition for a
8
writ of habeas corpus is denied.
dismissed without prejudice.
Any claims under § 1983 are
As petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of constitutional right, a
certificate of appealability will not issue.
28 U.S.C. § 2253.
The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and
therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an
appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82
S.Ct. 917 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested
to serve a copy of this Order on plaintiff and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
_________/s/_________________
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York
Dated: October 7, 2013
Brooklyn, New York
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
X
MICHAEL TAYLOR,
NOT FOR PRINT OR
ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION
Plaintiff,
-against-
CIVIL JUDGMENT
13-CV-4621 (KAM)(RLM)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK,
Defendant.
X
Pursuant to the order issued today by the undersigned
dismissing the petition, it is,
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That the petition is
dismissed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(3) that any appeal taken from the Court’s order would not be
taken in good faith. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
requested to serve a copy of this Order and Judgment on
plaintiff and note service on the docket.
________/s/__________________
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York
Dated:
Brooklyn, New York
October 7, 2013
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?