Burns v. Warden and/or Superintendent of the Westchester County Jail

Background

George Burns, who was incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility when the order was issued, filed a petition without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He had previously been held at the Westchester County Jail. Burns alleged that he had three misdemeanor assault convictions from a Town of Mount Pleasant, New York court. He said the arrests occurred in June and July 2009 on the grounds of the Westchester County Jail.

Burns appeared to contend that the convictions were invalid because the jail was not located in the Town of Mount Pleasant. He stated that the jail used a Valhalla mailing address and that Westchester County police officers transported detainees between the jail and court. He also alleged that correctional officers may have been prosecuted in Mount Pleasant for offenses occurring within the jail. The petition did not state what relief Burns sought.

Court’s analysis

The court construed the filing as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Burns appeared to be challenging state-court judgments. Section 2254 permits a state prisoner to seek federal relief on the ground that custody violates the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court notified Burns that he could withdraw the application within 60 days if he did not want to proceed under Section 2254. Otherwise, the filing would remain designated as a Section 2254 petition.

The court found that the petition did not meet Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. It did not identify the particular convictions being challenged, specify the requested relief, or clearly state the legal grounds and supporting facts. The court also explained that a Section 2254 petitioner ordinarily must first present the claims through New York’s appellate process and, when applicable, seek further review from the New York Court of Appeals. Burns alleged no facts showing that he had completed those steps.

The court further explained that a petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence being challenged when the petition is filed. State records showed that Burns was serving a sentence for a recent conviction for criminal possession of a weapon. The court said it did not appear that he remained in custody under the misdemeanor assault convictions from around 2009, and directed him to provide facts addressing that requirement if he amended the petition.

Finally, the court said the application might be barred by the one-year federal filing deadline for Section 2254 petitions. Burns’s allegations concerned arrests more than 15 years before he placed the petition in the jail’s mail system, but he did not provide the information needed to determine when the convictions became final or whether any later state proceedings affected the deadline. The court directed him to provide dates concerning appeals, requests for review, post-conviction motions, and any facts supporting a claim that the deadline should be extended because he pursued his rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.

Disposition

The court entered an order to amend. It directed Burns to submit an amended Section 2254 petition to the court’s Pro Se Office within 60 days, using the same docket number and identifying the convictions, claims, requested relief, exhaustion history, custody basis, and timeliness facts described in the order. The court stated that the amended petition would be reviewed for substantive sufficiency and, if proper, the case would be reassigned under the Clerk’s Office procedures. It did not decide whether Burns’s convictions were legally valid. If Burns failed to comply within the permitted time and could not show good cause, the petition would be denied. The order was signed by United States District Judge Louis L. Stanton.