Mann v. Superintendent
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-10223
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mann v. Superintendent, Judge Stanton dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice because Mann had not exhausted state-court remedies.
Joseph Adam Mann's federal habeas case was dismissed without prejudice, leaving him able to file a new § 2254 petition after exhausting available state-court remedies.
What happened
In Mann v. Superintendent, Joseph Adam Mann, who was incarcerated and represented himself, challenged how New York officials were carrying out his state sentence after a parole violation. He said officials did not timely transfer him to a 90-day drug-treatment program and sought restoration to parole and credit for time served.
Mann filed under a federal law for challenges to detention, but the court treated the petition as a challenge to the execution of a state sentence that must be filed under a different federal habeas statute. The court found that his petition did not allege that he had completed the available state-court review process.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. The order allowed Mann to file a new petition under the applicable statute after completing that process.
The detailed version
- Mann v. Superintendent · No. 1:20-cv-10223
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 7, 2021
Background
Joseph Adam Mann filed a petition without a lawyer challenging the execution of his state sentence. He was incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility. Mann initially filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal habeas statute, but the court concluded that his challenge belonged under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because it concerned how the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision was carrying out his state sentence.
Mann alleged that he was convicted on August 18, 2020, of violating state parole supervision. He claimed that the Department had failed to transfer him within the required time to a 90-day alternative drug-treatment program. He sought restoration to parole and credit for time served. An administrative law judge's form stated that 24 months of delinquent time had been assessed with a 90-day alternative drug-treatment program and informed Mann of his right to appeal.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a state prisoner generally must first give the state courts a fair opportunity to review the factual and legal basis of a claim before seeking federal habeas relief under § 2254. Mann's petition did not allege facts showing that he had exhausted the available state remedies.
The court therefore did not reach the merits of whether the Department had acted improperly or whether Mann was entitled to the requested relief. The opinion explained that, for claims arising from a parole-revocation hearing, the state review process generally includes an appeal to the Department's Appeals Unit, an Article 78 proceeding in New York State Supreme Court, an appeal to the Appellate Division, and a request for permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
Disposition
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. The court stated that Mann may file a new § 2254 petition after exhausting his available state-court remedies. The Clerk was directed to mail him a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.