Woody v. New York State

Background

John Woody filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the constitutionality of his New York state conviction. The opinion states that he was convicted of first-degree assault and first-degree burglary, received consecutive or concurrent sentence information not clarified in the opinion, and was sentenced to 21 and a half years of imprisonment. Woody appealed. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed his conviction on February 27, 2018, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on April 17, 2018.

The court treated the conviction as becoming final on July 17, 2018, after the 90-day period for seeking review by the Supreme Court expired. Woody placed his federal petition in the prison mailing system on October 20, 2020. He also stated that he filed unspecified motions in the New York County Supreme Court and the Appellate Division and received a decision in January 2020, but he did not provide the dates those motions were filed.

Respondent

Woody named “New York State D.O.C.S.” as the respondent. The court explained that a petition challenging current physical custody should name the person who has custody of the petitioner. It directed the Clerk to dismiss New York State D.O.C.S. as respondent and substitute the Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Timeliness issue

The court explained that a § 2254 petition generally must be filed within one year of the latest of specified events, including when the conviction becomes final. Properly filed state post-conviction applications can pause the limitations period if they were pending during that one-year period. Applications filed after the period expires do not restart it. The court also stated that sending a petition to the New York Attorney General without filing it in court generally does not pause the limitations period.

Based on the dates then available, the court stated that Woody’s one-year period began on July 17, 2018, and that he had until July 19, 2019 to file the petition. The court therefore concluded that the petition appeared untimely because Woody placed it in the prison mailing system on October 20, 2020. The opinion did not determine whether his unspecified state-court motions paused the deadline because their filing dates were unknown.

Order

The court granted Woody 60 days to show cause—meaning to provide facts explaining why the petition should not be denied as time-barred. It instructed him to identify the filing and decision dates for all state post-conviction applications, appeals, and requests for permission to appeal, along with when he received notice of the decisions. The court also invited him to provide facts supporting equitable tolling, which can extend a deadline when a petitioner pursued his rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.

The court stated that, if Woody timely filed a proper declaration, it would review the submission and, if appropriate, order the petition served on the respondent. If he failed to comply and could not show good cause for that failure, the petition would be denied. No answer was required at that time. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Woody had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied.

Disposition and classification

This was a procedural order, not a decision on whether Woody’s conviction violated the Constitution. The court did not deny the petition at this stage; it ordered Woody to explain why it should not be denied as time-barred and changed the named respondent.