Williams, Jr. v. City of New York

Background

Alexander Williams Jr., who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed an application challenging how his sentence was being carried out. He alleged that 15 months spent in pretrial detention at Rikers Island had been credited to his earlier 2013 sentence instead of his current 2018 sentence. He sought to have that time restored to him.

Williams alleged that he was arrested on March 14, 2018, while on post-release supervision for his 2013 conviction. He remained in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction from March 14, 2018, until September 8, 2023, when he was transferred to state prison to serve a current sentence of 25 years to life. A Department of Correction letter stated that 410 days of his detention had been claimed by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, referred to in the order as DOCCS, toward his earlier sentence. The letter cited New York Penal Law § 70.30(3), which addresses credit for jail time that was applied to an earlier sentence or period of post-release supervision.

Williams claimed that the City of New York had a policy or custom of taking time served without notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating due process. His claims had originally been included in a civil-rights complaint. In an earlier round of this case, another judge directed that the sentence-execution claims be separated into this action. The court later granted Williams permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Recharacterization as a federal imprisonment-review petition

The court construed Williams’s application as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition is a request for federal court relief from allegedly unlawful state custody or sentence administration. The court stated that Williams could notify it within 60 days if he did not want to pursue relief under that statute.

Exhaustion requirement

The court explained that a state prisoner generally must first give the state courts an opportunity to address the federal constitutional or legal claims. For a challenge to sentence calculation or execution, the court said Williams must first challenge the decision administratively with DOCCS, then file a proceeding under Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules. He would also need to pursue available appeals, including an appeal to the New York Appellate Division and, if appropriate, a request for permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

The court found that Williams did not state whether he had discussed the jail-time credit with the Sing Sing Inmate Records Coordinator, sought review from the DOCCS Office of Sentencing Review, or sought state-court review of any final administrative decision. The court therefore concluded that he had not shown that his constitutional claims were fully exhausted and ready for federal review. The court did not decide whether the time had been correctly credited or whether the alleged policy violated due process.

Order

The court granted Williams leave to file an amended Section 2254 petition within 60 days of the order. The amended petition must state the federal grounds for relief and describe the steps taken to exhaust those grounds in New York courts. It must replace the original petition, be labeled “Amended Petition,” and use docket number 24-CV-8075 (LTS). The court advised that the proper respondent for a Section 2254 petition is the superintendent of the facility where the petitioner is incarcerated.

If Williams does not file an amended petition, the petition will be dismissed without prejudice as premature. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Williams had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.