Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 17, 2020

Moise v. Fields

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:19-cv-11964
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Moise v. Fields, Judge Stanton gave Eddie Moise 60 days to explain why his habeas petition should not be denied as late.

Who this affects

Eddie Moise, whose federal petition was not yet decided on the merits, must explain within 60 days why it should not be denied as late. Leroy Fields was not required to respond at this stage.

What happened

In Moise v. Fields, Eddie Moise challenged his 2014 New York conviction through a federal petition while incarcerated. The opinion says the conviction became final on April 28, 2017, but Moise placed his petition in the prison mail collection box on December 10, 2019.

The court said the petition may be too late because federal law generally gives a person one year to file this type of petition. It also said Moise’s September 2018 state post-conviction motion appeared unable to pause or restart the deadline because it was filed after the one-year period expired.

Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Moise 60 days to file a declaration explaining why the petition should not be denied as late. The court said it would review a timely declaration and, if appropriate, require Leroy Fields to respond; no response was required at that time. The court also said no certificate allowing an appeal would issue.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Moise v. Fields · No. 1:19-cv-11964
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Apr. 17, 2020

Background

Eddie Moise, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his May 28, 2014 judgment of conviction in New York Supreme Court, New York County. The court received his $5 filing fee on April 9, 2020. The opinion states that the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction on November 15, 2016, and that the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on January 18, 2017.

Timeliness issue

A federal petition under § 2254 generally must be filed within one year from the latest of several specified dates. The court determined that Moise’s conviction became final on April 28, 2017, after the 90-day period for seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court expired. Moise therefore had one year from that date to file the petition. He placed the petition in the prison mail collection box on December 10, 2019.

The opinion says Moise alleged that he filed a motion to vacate the judgment under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 on September 9, 2018. The court explained that a properly filed state post-conviction application can pause the federal limitations period when it is pending during that period, but a motion filed after the period expires does not restart it. Because Moise’s motion was filed after the one-year period, the court said it did not appear to pause the deadline.

Order

Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Moise leave to file, within 60 days of the order, a declaration showing why the petition should not be denied as time-barred. The court directed him to provide information about his state post-conviction applications, including filing and decision dates, appeals, and when he received notice of state-court decisions. He could also provide facts showing that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing, which may support equitable tolling.

If Moise timely files a proper declaration, the court will review it and may order Fields to answer. If Moise does not comply and cannot show good cause for that failure, the court will deny the petition as time-barred. The court stated that no answer was required at that time. It also stated that, because Moise had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, a certificate of appealability would not issue.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.