Williams v. Noeth
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-00054
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 20
In Williams v. Noeth, Judge Stanton ordered Anthony Williams to explain within 60 days why his state-prison habeas petition should not be denied as untimely.
Anthony Williams, whose federal challenge to his New York conviction was ordered to be supported with a declaration addressing possible untimeliness; J. Noeth was not required to answer at this stage.
What happened
In Williams v. Noeth, Anthony Williams, who is incarcerated at Marcy Correctional Facility and is representing himself, challenged his 2013 New York state conviction under a federal law allowing state prisoners to seek federal review. The court said the petition appeared to be filed too late.
The court calculated that the conviction became final on September 14, 2019, but Williams placed his petition in the prison mail system on December 18, 2020. Williams cited difficulty understanding the law, lack of guidance from appellate counsel, and unsuccessful efforts to find a lawyer. The court said those facts did not by themselves justify extending the filing deadline.
Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered Williams to file, within 60 days, a declaration explaining why the petition should not be denied as time-barred and identifying relevant state post-conviction filings and decisions. The court did not require a response from the respondent at that time; it stated that failure to comply could result in denial of the petition as time-barred.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Noeth · No. 1:21-cv-00054
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 6, 2021
Background
Anthony Williams, who was incarcerated at Marcy Correctional Facility, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2013 conviction in the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. He represented himself. The United States District Court for the Western District of New York transferred the petition to the Southern District of New York. The court had previously allowed Williams to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Possible filing deadline problem
Federal law generally gives a state prisoner one year to file a § 2254 petition, measured from the latest of several specified events. The court stated that the New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed Williams's conviction on February 21, 2019, and that the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on June 14, 2019. Because the period for seeking review by the United States Supreme Court then expired, the court determined that the conviction became final on September 14, 2019.
Williams placed his federal petition in the prison mail collection box on December 18, 2020, which the court described as more than one year and three months after the conviction became final. The court therefore concluded that the petition might be barred by the one-year deadline.
Williams's explanation
Williams stated that he had difficulty understanding the law, that appellate counsel gave him no direction after the direct appeal ended, and that he had tried to find a lawyer and contacted people listed in a criminal-justice address book without receiving a response.
The court explained that not understanding the law and representing oneself generally do not qualify as extraordinary circumstances allowing equitable tolling. Equitable tolling is a possible extension of a filing deadline when a person pursued rights diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The court found Williams's current assertions insufficient, but allowed him to provide additional facts.
Order
The court ordered Williams to file a declaration within 60 days showing why the petition should not be denied as time-barred. The declaration was to include information about state post-conviction applications challenging the conviction, including filing and decision dates, appeals or requests for further review, and when Williams received notice of those decisions. The court stated that, if Williams timely filed a proper declaration, it would review it and could order the respondent to answer. It also stated that, if he failed to comply and could not show good cause for the failure, the petition would be denied as time-barred.
The court did not require the respondent to answer at that stage. It also stated that a certificate allowing an appeal would not issue because Williams had not then made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The opinion is an order directing Williams to show cause; it does not itself state that the petition was denied.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.