Henderson v. Sticht
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-07575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Henderson v. Sticht, Judge Swain ordered Ted L. Henderson to explain why his federal petition challenging his conviction should not be dismissed as untimely.
Ted L. Henderson is required to file a declaration within 60 days addressing the petition’s apparent untimeliness. Thomas Sticht was not required to answer at this stage.
What happened
In Henderson v. Sticht, Ted L. Henderson, who is incarcerated and representing himself, challenged his June 8, 2011 conviction in Orange County Supreme Court. The court said the petition was filed more than two years after the conviction became final on April 19, 2018.
The court explained that federal law generally gives a state prisoner one year to file a petition challenging a conviction. It said Henderson’s state post-conviction motions, filed in 2019 and 2020, appeared to have been filed after that one-year period and therefore did not extend the deadline.
The court did not dismiss the petition at this stage. Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Henderson to file, within 60 days, a declaration explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred, including facts supporting diligent pursuit of his rights or an extraordinary reason for the delay. No response from the respondent was required yet.
The detailed version
- Henderson v. Sticht · No. 7:20-cv-07575
- Nelson Roman
- Apr. 19, 2021
Background
Ted L. Henderson, who was incarcerated at Wyoming Correctional Facility and proceeded without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his June 8, 2011 conviction in the Orange County Supreme Court. The petition was executed on September 8, 2020, and received by the court on September 14, 2020. The court noted that Henderson had paid the filing fee after previously being directed either to pay it or submit an application to proceed without paying it.
Timeliness analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), a state prisoner generally has one year to file a federal petition challenging a state-court conviction. The one-year period can run from the latest of several dates, including when the conviction becomes final, when a government-created filing barrier is removed, when a newly recognized and retroactive constitutional right becomes available, or when supporting facts could have been discovered through reasonable diligence.
The court stated that Henderson’s conviction became final on April 19, 2018, after the 90-day period for seeking review by the United States Supreme Court expired. The court therefore concluded that the September 2020 petition appeared to be late. It also explained that properly filed state post-conviction applications can pause the federal deadline only when they are pending during the one-year limitations period. According to the court, Henderson’s state post-conviction motions filed in 2019 and 2020 were filed after the one-year period had expired and therefore appeared not to pause or restart that period.
Order to show cause
The court directed Henderson to file a declaration within 60 days explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. The declaration was to include dates and details for his state post-conviction applications, related appeals or requests for permission to appeal, the decisions on those matters, and when he received notice of those decisions. The court also instructed him to identify facts showing that he had pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance had prevented timely filing. This concerns equitable tolling, a possible exception that can extend a filing deadline in appropriate circumstances.
The court did not dismiss the petition in this order. It stated that, if Henderson timely filed a proper declaration, it would review the declaration and, if appropriate, order Thomas Sticht to respond. If Henderson failed to comply and could not show good cause for that failure, the petition would be denied as time-barred. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Henderson had not then made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.