Newman v. Vance
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-01416
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Newman v. Vance, Judge Stanton ordered the petitioner to explain why his habeas petition should not be dismissed as untimely.
Maurice Newman must file the ordered declaration within 60 days to address the apparent filing deadline problem. Cyrus Vance Jr. was not required to answer at this stage.
What happened
In Newman v. Vance, Maurice Newman challenged his 2009 New York state conviction in a petition filed in 2020. He was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court said the petition appeared to have been filed more than seven years after the conviction became final, beyond the usual one-year deadline. It also said Newman's described state post-conviction proceedings did not appear to pause that deadline.
Judge Louis L. Stanton did not dismiss the petition at this stage. He ordered Newman to file a declaration within 60 days explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely, including facts supporting diligent pursuit of his rights or an extraordinary reason for the delay.
The detailed version
- Newman v. Vance · No. 1:20-cv-01416
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 20, 2020
Background
Maurice Newman, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his June 12, 2009 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, New York County. The petition was executed on February 18, 2020, and received by the court on February 19, 2020. The court had previously granted Newman's request to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Statute of limitations
A person seeking federal review of a state-court conviction generally must file within one year of the applicable date under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The court stated that Newman's conviction became final on November 20, 2012, after the 90-day period for seeking review by the United States Supreme Court expired. The court therefore concluded that the petition appeared to be more than seven years late.
Newman alleged that he had filed several post-conviction motions in New York state courts. The court explained that such proceedings can pause the one-year period if they were filed while that period was still running, but proceedings filed after the period expires do not restart it. Based on the information then before it, the court said Newman's state proceedings did not appear to pause the limitations period. A footnote noted that Newman alleged he had filed a Supreme Court certiorari petition that was denied, but he did not provide the filing or denial dates.
Order to show cause
The court did not dismiss the petition at this point. Instead, it ordered Newman to file a declaration within 60 days explaining why the application should not be dismissed as time-barred. The declaration must provide dates and other information about his state post-conviction applications, appeals, and notices of decisions. The court also directed him to allege facts showing that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing, which could support equitable tolling of the deadline.
If Newman timely files a proper declaration, the court stated that it will review it and may order the respondent to answer. If he does not comply and cannot show good cause for the failure, the petition will be denied as time-barred. No answer was required at that time. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Newman had not then made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.