Johnson v. People of the State of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-10066
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Johnson v. People of New York, Judge Stanton ordered Andre Johnson to explain within 60 days why his federal petition should not be dismissed as untimely.
Andre Johnson’s federal petition challenging his New York conviction, and the People of the State of New York as respondent.
What happened
Andre Johnson, who is incarcerated and representing himself, challenged his 2013 New York conviction in a federal petition. The opinion says the state appellate courts upheld the conviction, and the state’s highest court denied review in 2015.
The court explained that federal law generally gives a prisoner one year to file this type of petition. Johnson filed it in November 2020, more than four years after his conviction became final. The court noted that certain state post-conviction proceedings or extraordinary circumstances might affect the deadline, but Johnson had not alleged any such facts.
Judge Louis L. Stanton did not dismiss the petition at this stage. He ordered Johnson to file a declaration within 60 days explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred, including information about any state post-conviction filings and any facts supporting a delay. If Johnson does not timely comply or show good cause, the petition will be denied as time-barred.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. People of the State of New York · No. 1:20-cv-10066
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 25, 2021
Background
Andre Johnson filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his August 7, 2013 conviction in New York Supreme Court, New York County. The opinion states that he was sentenced to seven years’ incarceration and five years of post-release supervision. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction on September 29, 2015, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on December 4, 2015. The court determined that the conviction became final on March 3, 2016, after the 90-day period for seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court expired.
The court had previously allowed Johnson to proceed without paying the filing fee. Johnson placed his federal petition in the prison mail collection box on or about November 18, 2020. The opinion states that he did not allege filing any state post-conviction motions.
Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a state prisoner generally has one year to file a federal petition challenging a state conviction. The one-year period can run from the date the conviction becomes final or, in specified circumstances, from a later date involving a government-created obstacle, a newly recognized and retroactive constitutional right, or newly discoverable facts. State post-conviction proceedings filed before the limitations period expires can toll, or pause, the period under § 2244(d)(2). The limitations period may also be subject to equitable tolling when a petitioner has pursued rights diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
Court’s Action
The court did not make a final determination that Johnson’s petition was time-barred. Instead, Judge Louis L. Stanton directed Johnson to file a declaration within 60 days explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely. The declaration was to include, if relevant, the dates and outcomes of state post-conviction applications and facts showing diligent pursuit of his rights or extraordinary circumstances causing the delay. The court stated that, if Johnson timely files a proper declaration, it will review the filing and may order the respondent to answer. If he fails to comply and cannot show good cause for that failure, the petition will be denied as time-barred. No answer from the respondent was required at that time.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.