Pierre-Lys v. State of New York

Background

Roodolph L. Pierre-Lys, who was incarcerated at Hale Creek Correctional Facility, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the sentence arising from his September 27, 2023 conviction in New York Supreme Court, New York County. The opinion states that he was convicted under New York Penal Law §§ 220.21-01 and 220.16-01 and sentenced to two years in prison followed by one year of supervised release.

Pierre-Lys alleged that, during his guilty plea, the prosecutor pressured him to waive participation in a “boot camp shock program.” He sought release from custody, asserting that without the prosecutor’s alleged conduct he likely would have been screened for and placed in a 90-day physical and mental drug-treatment program followed by intensive supervision. He asserted that the alleged waiver violated federal and state constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a person challenging a state conviction in federal court generally must first give the state courts a full opportunity to review the constitutional claims. This usually requires appealing the conviction through the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and, if necessary, seeking review by the New York Court of Appeals. The court noted that Pierre-Lys did not allege that he had filed a direct appeal or otherwise completed state-court review. He stated instead that a state-court petition was still pending.

The court also found that the 67-page petition did not satisfy Rule 2(c) of the rules governing § 2254 cases. That rule requires a petitioner to identify each ground for relief, provide supporting facts, and state the requested relief. The court found the submission confusing, repetitive, and insufficiently clear about the facts and legal theory supporting the allegation that the prosecutor acted unlawfully regarding the boot-camp waiver.

The court did not decide the merits of Pierre-Lys’s constitutional or Americans with Disabilities Act claims. It directed him to provide clearer factual and legal grounds and to describe the steps taken to fully pursue each ground in the New York courts.

Disposition

The court granted Pierre-Lys leave to file an amended petition within 60 days of the order. The amended petition must be labeled “Amended Petition,” use the same docket number, and replace the original petition. The court stated that the amended petition would be reviewed for substantive sufficiency and, if proper, the case would be reassigned to a district judge under the Clerk’s Office’s procedures. If Pierre-Lys did not comply within the permitted time and could not show good cause, the petition would be denied.

The court also stated that Pierre-Lys had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing costs. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.