Triplett v. Reardon
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-01064
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Triplett v. P. REANDON, Judge McMahon ordered Omar Triplett to explain within 60 days why his petition should not be denied as too late.
Omar Triplett was required to explain why his federal challenge to two 2001 New York convictions should not be denied as time-barred; the petition was not yet denied.
What happened
Triplett v. P. REANDON concerns Omar Triplett’s petition, filed without a lawyer, challenging two New York County convictions from 2001. He mailed the petition in January 2020 and also described state post-conviction motions filed beginning in 2009.
The court explained that federal law generally gives a prisoner one year to file this type of petition after a conviction becomes final. It determined that the deadlines for Triplett’s two convictions expired in 2004, and that his later state motions did not restart or pause those deadlines.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered Triplett to file a declaration within 60 days explaining why the petition should not be denied as too late. The court did not yet deny the petition, required no response from the respondent at that time, deferred ruling on appointed counsel, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Triplett v. Reardon · No. 1:20-cv-01064
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 23, 2020
Background
Omar Triplett, who was incarcerated at Marcy Correctional Facility, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure for challenging state-court convictions. He filed without a lawyer and challenged two New York County judgments: a March 14, 2001 judgment involving two first-degree robbery convictions and one attempted first-degree robbery conviction, and an August 8, 2001 judgment involving two additional first-degree robbery convictions.
Triplett alleged that he later filed state post-conviction motions under New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 440.10 and 440.20. He alleged that the earliest of those motions was filed in April or May 2009. He placed his federal petition in the prison mail system on January 30, 2020.
Court’s analysis
The court noted that Rule 2(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases generally requires separate petitions when a person challenges more than one state-court judgment. Rather than require Triplett to separate the challenges, the court addressed both because both appeared to be barred by the filing deadline.
The court explained that § 2244(d)(1) generally gives a person one year from the relevant deadline—usually when the conviction becomes final—to file a § 2254 petition. It determined that Triplett’s March 14, 2001 conviction became final, at the latest, around October 9, 2003, making the filing deadline about October 9, 2004. The August 8, 2001 conviction became final, at the latest, around August 23, 2003, making its filing deadline about August 23, 2004.
The court further explained that properly filed state post-conviction proceedings can pause the one-year period only when they are pending before that period expires. They do not restart an already expired period. Because Triplett alleged that his earliest state motions were not filed until 2009, the court concluded that those motions did not pause either deadline.
Order
The court did not yet deny the petition. It ordered Triplett to file, within 60 days of the order, a declaration showing why the petition should not be denied as time-barred. The declaration was to provide dates and other information about his state post-conviction applications, related appeals or requests for permission to appeal, decisions, and notice of those decisions. The court also invited facts supporting equitable tolling, which can extend a filing deadline when a person pursued his rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
The court stated that if Triplett failed to comply and could not show good cause for that failure, it would deny the petition as time-barred. No response from the respondent was required at that stage. The court deferred ruling on Triplett’s request for appointed counsel until after he filed the declaration. It also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.