Fredricks v. Superintendent of Green Haven C.F.

Background

Nigel Fredricks, who is incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and is representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his March 17, 2022 New York State Supreme Court, New York County conviction. The conviction followed his guilty plea to charges of attempted second-degree assault and second-degree strangulation. The opinion states that he is serving a four-to-eight-year sentence and that he reported his appeal was pending.

The court also described a prior related proceeding in which Fredricks challenged the same conviction. That petition was dismissed because he had not shown that he had exhausted his state-court remedies. The court had allowed him to file an amended petition addressing exhaustion, but he instead submitted a letter that did not state facts showing that his remedies had been exhausted.

Court’s Analysis

Federal law generally requires a person challenging a state conviction or sentence to first complete the available state-court review process. This requirement is called exhaustion. It gives state courts the first opportunity to consider alleged constitutional errors. A claim is exhausted only when the petitioner has presented both its factual and legal basis through the state’s established appellate process.

The court explained that Fredricks generally needed to pursue his appeal in the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and, if necessary, seek permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. For claims raised through certain state post-conviction motions, he also needed to complete the applicable state appellate process.

Because Fredricks stated that his appeal was pending, the court concluded that he had not shown exhaustion of his state remedies. The opinion did not decide whether his conviction or sentence violated federal law.

Disposition

The court dismissed the petition without prejudice to Fredricks’s filing an amended petition showing that he had exhausted his state remedies. It granted him 90 days to submit the amended petition. The court directed that any amended petition clearly and legibly state each ground for relief and describe the steps taken to fully exhaust each ground in the New York courts. The court also stated that an amended petition completely replaces the original petition.

The conclusion states that Fredricks’s application for a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied without prejudice to filing an amended petition within 90 days of the order.