Watson v. The People of the State of New York

Background

Joseph Watson had filed multiple federal petitions challenging his October 27, 2004 state conviction without first completing the required state-court review. In a prior related proceeding, Judge Paul Gardephe ordered Watson to obtain court permission before filing another petition and to provide documentation that he had perfected his direct appeal.

Watson later told the court that the New York Appellate Division, First Department, had denied his request for more time to perfect his appeal and had dismissed the appeal. On November 15, 2019, the court concluded that Watson appeared unable to comply with Judge Gardephe’s earlier order because his claims appeared procedurally barred. The court allowed him to file a new petition within 60 days, but directed him to explain whether he was still “in custody,” identify all grounds for relief and supporting facts, and show either a legally sufficient reason for the procedural default and resulting harm or that he was actually innocent.

Rule 60(b) motion

Rather than file the directed petition, Watson submitted a document titled “Notice of Petition for Rule 60(b)(3)(4)(6)” with attachments. The court liberally treated the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, or extraordinary circumstances.

The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It explained that Watson appeared to misunderstand the November 15 order: he did not have a habeas petition pending, and the court could consider his claims only after he filed a petition. The court also held that Watson had not alleged facts showing that any of the first five Rule 60(b) grounds applied or that extraordinary circumstances justified relief under Rule 60(b)(6). His filing did not identify legal or factual reasons to question the order granting him permission to file a new petition.

Additional time to file a petition

Because Watson appeared confused, the court granted him an additional 30 days to file a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court stated that, although Watson had been discharged from parole, he might still satisfy the “in custody” requirement if he remained subject to future adverse consequences or restraints not shared by the general public. It directed him to allege facts supporting that requirement.

The court also directed Watson to list each ground for relief and the facts supporting each ground. It noted that even procedurally barred claims might be considered if Watson could establish cause and prejudice or actual innocence. The court warned that it could consider his grounds only in an actual petition and that another noncompliant submission would result in dismissal of the action. The order stated that if Watson did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause for the failure, the petition would be denied.

Request for counsel and other rulings

The court denied Watson’s second application for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewing the request later. It terminated all other pending matters.

The court also determined that Watson 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 appeal without paying the filing fee.

Disposition and classification

The court denied Watson’s motion for reconsideration; granted him leave to file a habeas petition containing specified information; and denied his second application for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal. The order did not decide the merits of Watson’s challenge to his conviction. Because the order resolved a reconsideration request and other filing-related matters without reaching the underlying constitutional claims, it is a procedural order.