Molemohi v. People of the State of New York

Background

Godfrey Molemohi, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his New York state conviction. He claimed that his federal due process rights were violated by ineffective assistance of trial counsel, improperly admitted Molineux evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and an allegedly improper jury instruction concerning evaluation of his trial testimony.

Molemohi was convicted in New York County Supreme Court on June 13, 2011, of two counts of first-degree assault, one count of third-degree assault, and one count of attempted third-degree assault. He received a cumulative determinate sentence of 15 years’ incarceration on November 13, 2012. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction on February 23, 2017, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on June 22, 2017. The district court treated the conviction as final on September 21, 2017, 90 days after that denial.

While his direct appeal was pending, Molemohi filed a state-court motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal the denial of that motion on March 3, 2016. Molemohi later filed his federal petition on October 23, 2018. The opinion notes that the report and objections referred to October 18, 2018, but the docket showed October 23, 2018; the court stated that the discrepancy did not change its conclusions.

Timeliness and Tolling

Respondents moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. Magistrate Judge Cott recommended granting the motion and dismissing the petition. Molemohi filed objections, but the court found them untimely and, in any event, considered them.

The court held that the petition was barred by the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), which generally requires a state prisoner to seek federal review within one year after the conviction becomes final. Because the conviction became final on September 21, 2017, and Molemohi filed on October 23, 2018, the petition was late.

The court also agreed that Molemohi was not entitled to statutory tolling, which can pause the filing period during certain properly pending state proceedings. His 2014 state motion had been resolved on March 3, 2016—before the federal limitations period began—so it did not affect the deadline.

The court further rejected equitable tolling, an exceptional extension of the deadline. A petitioner seeking that extension must show extraordinary circumstances caused the delay and that he pursued his rights diligently. Molemohi attributed the delay to two prison transfers, disruptions, cell searches, prison programs, problems with cellmates, and difficulties handling his legal work. The court found that these circumstances did not establish the required severity or diligence. It also noted that he did not allege a complete loss of access to legal materials, unavailable legal grounds or facts, or a total denial of law-library access. The court found no evidence that he mailed a June 2018 letter requesting a 90-day extension and stated that, even assuming he had mailed it, he did so one year after his state appeals process had ended.

Ruling

Judge Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Cott’s report and overruled Molemohi’s objections. The court denied the objections, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed the petition because it was time-barred. The court did not reach the merits of Molemohi’s underlying claims about his conviction.

The court stated that Molemohi had not made a substantial showing that a federal right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to close the motion.