Clark v. The State of New York et al

Filing 52

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 40 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Eric Wade Clark, 50 Report and Recommendation 46 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Eric Wade Clark, 43 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Eric W ade Clark. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, dated August 5, 2024, is ADOPTED in its entirety and that the Petition is DISMISSED. Additionally, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Small v. Orange Cnty. Ct., Prosecutors Off., No. 18-CV-2716, 2020 WL 1082710, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2020) (citing Lucidore v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2000)), and 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, Whitted v. Stallone, No. 11-CV-7569, 2016 WL 1268278, at *1 (S .D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2016) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed terminate the pending motions at Dkt. Nos. at 40, 43, and 46, close this case and to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 8/30/2024) (mml) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ERIC WADE CLARK,
Petitioner,
v.
THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,

No. 22-CV-6635 (KMK)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Respondents.
KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:
On July 26, 2016, Acting Supreme Court Justice Susan Cacace (“Judge Cacace”) in
Supreme Court, Westchester County issued a decision and order, concluding that Eric Wade
Clark (“Petitioner” or “Clark”) is a dangerous sex offender suffering from a mental abnormality,
and ordering that he be subjected to civil confinement. (See Dkt. No. 32 at 151–63.)
Approximately three years later, on March 19, 2019, the County Court in Oneida County, issued
an order, which directed that Petitioner be released from civil confinement to strict and intensive
supervision and treatment (“SIST”), pursuant to under New York State Mental Hygiene Law
(“MHL”) § 10.11. (See id. at 164–69.) On April 9, 2021, Mr, Clark filed a petition seeking to be
discharged from SIST. (See id. at 172–204.) Judge Cacace issued a decision and order on June
15, 2021, that did not decide the discharge petition, but instead directed the Commissioner of the
Office of Mental Health, and the Division of Parole, to provide an updated report regarding
Petitioner’s behavior while subject to SIST. (See id. at 222–30.) The report determined that
Petitioner met the criteria for mental abnormality as defined in MHL § 10.03(i), and as a result,
on October 14, 2021, Judge Cacace denied Mr. Clark’s petition for discharge from SIST. (See
id. at 254–56.)

On August 3, 2022, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the instant Petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2554, challenging his continued civil management under
SIST. (See Pet. (Dkt. No. 1).) 1 Specifically, the Petition challenges the June 15, 2021 decision
and order and the denial of a previous federal habeas corpus petition that Petitioner filed in 2010,
which challenged the revocation of his parole in 2007. (See Am. Pet. at 4–6.) In addition, the
Court construes the Petition to also be challenging the October 14, 2021 decision and order to
keep Petitioner in SIST, as well as Petitioner’s subjection to MHL Article 104 proceedings at all
from the time those proceedings were initiated in August 2012. (See generally Petition.)
On April 3, 2023, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause
(“Judge Krause”). (See Dkt. No. 13.) Judge Krause issued a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), on August 5, 2024, recommending that Mr. Clark’s Petition be
denied. (See R&R (Dkt. No. 50).) No objections were filed. 2, 3.

1

The Court notes that Mr. Clark amended his Petition on January 4, 2023. (See Am. Pet.
(Dkt. No. 6).) The Court’s construes Mr. Clark’s original Petition, (see Dkt. No. 1), Amended
Petition (see Dkt. No. 6), and supplementary documents (see Dkt. Nos. 3–4) together as the
operative Amended Petition. Accordingly, the references herein to the “Petition” refer to Mr.
Clark’s habeas claims as set forth in the Amended Petition and amplified by the various filings
and documents filed by Petitioner.
2

Judge Krause provided notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days
from the receipt of the R&R, and that the failure to object would constitute a waiver of either
Parties’ right to raise any objections to this R&R on appeal. (See R&R 38.)
3

On August 13, 2024, Mr. Clark emailed various entities, including this Court’s
chambers. Mr. Clark acknowledged that Judge Krause filed an R&R in this Action but claimed
that it was “unlawful” for him to do so given the fact that Mr. Clark had filed a petition for
mandamus regarding his Action in the Second Circuit. (See 8/13/2024 Clark Email (Dkt. No.
51).) In the same email, Mr. Clark asserts that he is demanding in his mandamus petition that
this Court be removed from the matter and that Mr. Clark “will not send anything to Judge
Karas.” (See id.) Mr. Clark has not filed anything further on the docket that this Court could
interpret as objections to the R&R. (See Dkt.) As such, the Court concludes that Mr. Clark has
not filed any objections. Additionally, the Court notes that despite Mr. Clark’s filing of a

When no objections are filed, the Court reviews an R&R on a dispositive motion for clear
error. See Torres v. Golden Home Furniture Inc., No. 20-CV-4789, 2023 WL 3791807, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2023) (citing Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F. Supp. 2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y.
2010)); see also ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-9527, 2022 WL 17070111, at
*1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022) (same). The Court has reviewed the R&R, and finding no
substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, dated August
5, 2024, is ADOPTED in its entirety and that the Petition is DISMISSED. Additionally, because
Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate
of appealability will not issue, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Small v. Orange Cnty. Ct.,
Prosecutors Off., No. 18-CV-2716, 2020 WL 1082710, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2020) (citing
Lucidore v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 111–12 (2d Cir. 2000)), and 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, Whitted v. Stallone, No. 11-CV-7569, 2016 WL 1268278, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30,
2016) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully directed terminate the pending motions at Dkt. Nos. at 40, 43, and 46, close this case
and to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner.

mandamus petition in the Second Circuit, this Court is not divested of its jurisdiction to decide
the instant Petition. See S.E.C. v. Citigroup Glob. Markets Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 336, 339
(S.D.N.Y. 2011), supplemented (Dec. 29, 2011) (holding that “the mere application to the Court
of Appeals for a writ of mandamus” does not “deprive a district court of jurisdiction in any
respect”); see also Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen, No. 16-CV-4756, 2018 WL 333515, at *4 (E.D.N.Y.
Jan. 8, 2018) (citing Citigroup Glob. Markets Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 336, and noting that filing of
a mandamus petition does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction).

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 30, 2024
White Plains, New York
____________________________________
KENNETH M. KARAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE