Fulton v. Superintendent
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-00021
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Fulton v. Superintendent, Judge McMahon ordered Fulton to explain why his federal conviction challenge should not be dismissed as untimely.
Jeremy Fulton, whose federal petition was not yet dismissed but was subject to an order requiring him to explain the possible filing deadline problem; the Superintendent, who was not required to answer at that stage.
What happened
Fulton v. Superintendent concerns Jeremy Fulton's pro se federal petition challenging his 2011 New York conviction. The court said the petition was filed more than three years after the conviction became final, potentially beyond the one-year filing deadline.
The court could not determine whether Fulton's state postconviction motions paused the deadline because he did not provide the dates of those filings and decisions. It also explained that a deadline extension might be available if he pursued his rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
Judge McMahon ordered Fulton to submit a declaration explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. The court did not require the respondent to answer at this stage, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Fulton v. Superintendent · No. 1:20-cv-00021
- George Daniels
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
Jeremy Fulton, who was incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility, filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2011 conviction in New York Supreme Court, New York County. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion identifies the respondent as Superintendent.
Fulton alleged that he was convicted after pleading guilty on December 20,
- The New York Appellate Division affirmed the conviction on February 19,
- The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on May 12, 2015, and denied reconsideration on June 24,
- The federal court determined that the conviction became final on September 23, 2015, after the period for asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review it expired. Fulton placed his federal petition in the prison mail collection box on or about December 24, 2019.
Timeliness analysis
Federal law generally gives a person one year to file a petition challenging a state conviction. The court therefore calculated that the ordinary filing period expired on or about September 23, 2016. The petition appeared untimely because it was filed more than three years later.
The court explained that properly filed state postconviction applications can pause the one-year period while they are pending, but they do not restart the period. Fulton alleged that he filed several state postconviction motions and received decisions in 2017 and October 2019. He did not provide the filing dates, decision dates, appeal dates, or dates when he received notice of those rulings. The court therefore could not determine whether the motions were filed before the federal limitations period expired or how long any tolling lasted.
The court also explained that the deadline may be extended in appropriate circumstances when a petitioner pursued his rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. It directed Fulton to provide facts addressing those issues.
Order and current disposition
The court directed Fulton to file a declaration explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred and listing the dates of his state postconviction applications, decisions, appeals, requests for permission to appeal, and notice of those matters. The discussion section gave him sixty days from the order's date, while the conclusion directed him to file within thirty days. The opinion does not resolve that inconsistency. It states that if Fulton fails to comply within the allowed time and cannot show good cause, the petition will be denied as time-barred.
No answer was required from the respondent at that time. The court also stated that Fulton had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was 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. Judge McMahon issued the order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.