Solis v. Brown

Background

Jose Solis, who is incarcerated and is representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking a federal court to review a state conviction. The order states that publicly available records indicate Solis was convicted in New York County of attempted assault in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree and received a sentence of two to four years. The petition itself did not identify the conviction Solis wanted reviewed, the grounds for his challenge, or the facts supporting those grounds.

Solis checked boxes stating that he had appealed the conviction, sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, and filed other applications concerning the judgment. The court said it could find no record of those prior matters. The named respondent is Attorney Victor Manuel Brown, who appears to be a New York County Assistant District Attorney. The court had previously allowed Solis to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Why the Court Required an Amendment

Rule 2(c) of the rules governing federal petitions challenging state convictions requires a petition to identify every available ground for relief, state the supporting facts, and specify the requested relief. The court concluded that Solis’s petition did not satisfy that rule because it did not provide enough information for either the court or the respondent to understand the constitutional basis of the challenge. Construing the self-represented filing liberally, the court gave Solis an opportunity to provide the missing information rather than immediately deny the petition.

The court also explained the exhaustion requirement. Before seeking federal review of a state conviction, a petitioner generally must give the state courts the first opportunity to consider the alleged constitutional errors. For Solis’s case, that generally means pursuing the conviction through the appropriate New York appellate courts and completing any available state post-conviction review for claims based on such proceedings. The court directed Solis to provide information about his prior efforts and show that he exhausted available state remedies.

Order and Effect

The court granted Solis leave to file an amended petition within 60 days of the order. The amended petition must state the grounds for relief, describe the supporting facts, explain the steps taken to exhaust state remedies, be labeled an “Amended Petition,” and use the same docket number. It will completely replace the original petition. The court will review it for substantive sufficiency and, if it is proper, reassign the action under the court’s procedures.

The court did not decide whether Solis’s conviction or custody violated federal law. It stated that if Solis does not comply within the allowed time and cannot show good cause for the failure, the petition will be denied. Because Solis had not then made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, the court said a certificate of appealability would not issue. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.