Jones v. Chappius

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Dwayne Jones's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. No Certificate of Appealability shall issue because petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, " as 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) requires. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner in accordance with the Local Rules and close this case. ORDER ATTACHED. Ordered by Judge Eric R. Komitee on 7/1/2021. c/m to petitioner. (Guy, Alicia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
DWAYNE JONES,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
17-CV-4064(EK)

Petitioner,
-againstP. CHAPPIUS, JR., Superintendent,
Respondent.
------------------------------------x
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:

Petitioner Dwayne Jones, proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus in May 2017, challenging
his 2012 conviction in New York State Supreme Court.

Because

Petitioner has not complied with Rule 2(c) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts despite the Court’s repeated requests, the petition is
dismissed.
Background
Jones was convicted of first-degree robbery, criminal
possession of a weapon, and related charges in connection with
two robberies.
conviction.

See Petition, ECF No. 1.

He appealed his

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed

his conviction in September 2015, and the New York Court of

Appeals denied leave to appeal in April 2016. 

Id.

This habeas

petition followed.
The petition was submitted on a pre-printed form for
pro se petitioners entitled “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus.”

See Petition, ECF No. 1.

The

petition does not state the grounds on which Petitioner is
seeking habeas relief — the section provided for that
information is left blank.

See id. at 7-8.

Instead, it states

only the grounds on which Petitioner appealed his conviction in
state court.

Id. at 2.

Petitioner also attached the Decision

and Order of the Appellate Division dated September 23,
2015.

See id. at 10-11.
On December 11, 2020, I issued an order noting that

Petitioner’s habeas petition did not adequately state grounds
for habeas relief, and directed him to submit an amended
petition that complies with Rule 2(c) on or before February 1,
2021.

ECF No. 17.
Petitioner did not amend his petition.

Instead, on

January 14, 2021, he filed a motion to stay to permit him to
seek post-conviction relief in state court under N.Y. C.P.L.
§ 440.10.

ECF No. 18.

The stay motion was denied.

On March 19, 2021, I granted Petitioner a final
opportunity to amend his petition by April 9, 2021 if he still
wished to pursue habeas relief.

In that Order, Petitioner was
2

warned that if he did not comply, the petition would be
dismissed.

Petitioner once again did not file an amended

petition, nor did he request another extension of time.
Discussion
A motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must “specify all the
grounds for relief available to the petitioner” and “state the
facts supporting each ground.”

Rule 2(c), Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (2010);
Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005) (“Notice pleading is
not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that
point to a real possibility of constitutional error.”).

The

petition “must permit the Court and the respondent to comprehend
both the petitioner’s grounds for relief and the underlying
facts and legal theory supporting each ground so that the issues
presented in the petition may be adjudicated.”

Jhagroo v.

Immigration Court, No. 19-CV-3689, 2019 WL 6051444, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2019).

Although the Court is obliged to

construe pro se pleadings liberally, a pro se petitioner is not
exempt “from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and
substantive law.”

Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d

471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted); see
Jhagroo, 2019 WL 6051444, at *1 (applying Triestman to pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus).

3

The Advisory Committee Notes to the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases provide that a court may dismiss a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus on its own motion pursuant to Rule
4.

Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases, Advisory Committee

Notes; see also, e.g., McNally v. O’Flynn, No. 10-CV-00921, 2012
WL 3230439, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012) (dismissing habeas
petition under Rule 4).

And petitions that do not specify a

claim for relief are subject to dismissal.

E.g., Ball v.

Superintendent, No. 18-CV-1356, 2019 WL 2636140, at *2 (N.D.N.Y.
June 27, 2019) (dismissing habeas petition where petitioner
declined to amend to state a claim for relief, despite a warning
that petition would be dismissed); Jones v. United States, No.
7-CV-3222 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2007) (same).
Here, Petitioner has repeatedly declined the Court’s
directives to amend the petition.

The Court will not speculate

as to what claims Petitioner is advancing, the grounds upon
which his arguments are based, or the supporting facts upon
which he relies.

Accordingly, dismissal is appropriate at this

stage.

4

Conclusion
Dwayne Jones’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
dismissed.

No Certificate of Appealability shall issue because

petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right,” as 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
requires.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to serve

a copy of this Order on Petitioner in accordance with the Local
Rules and close this case.

SO ORDERED.

_/s/ Eric Komitee________________
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated:

July 1, 2021
Brooklyn, New York

5