Williams v. Justices of NYS Sup. Ct.

Background

Jomo Williams filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging matters related to his state-court conviction, including an alleged denial of his right to appeal. Federal law permits this type of petition only when the petitioner was “in custody” under the state judgment or sentence when the petition was filed.

Williams filed the petition on March 14, 2019. The court questioned whether he met the custody requirement because he was not apparently in custody. After further proceedings, Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Williams was not in custody when he filed the petition. Williams did not respond to that motion. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal, concluding that Williams was not physically confined, had no direct restraints on his liberty, and did not face sufficiently severe restraints from the collateral consequences he identified.

The collateral consequences Williams identified included possible future sentence enhancement, inability to serve on a jury, denial of a veteran’s vendor license, and denial of an application to become his mother’s guardian. The magistrate judge concluded that these consequences did not satisfy the custody requirement. The district court previously adopted that recommendation and dismissed the petition.

Motion for reconsideration

Williams later sought reconsideration, stating that he had not received the magistrate judge’s report before the deadline for objections. The court agreed that he had been denied a meaningful opportunity to object. It therefore granted reconsideration and reviewed his objections rather than treating the motion as an attempt to reargue the case.

Custody requirement and jurisdiction

The court explained that custody can sometimes include restraints other than physical incarceration, but the restraint must be severe or pose an imminent threat of severe restraint. The court agreed with the magistrate judge that Williams was not physically confined, had no direct restraints on his liberty, and was not subject to sufficiently severe restraints from the four collateral consequences he identified.

The court also rejected Williams’s argument that a “mootness exception” applied because New York appellate courts allegedly delayed resolving his appeal until he was no longer in custody. The court explained that the cases Williams cited concerned people who were released after properly beginning a habeas case while in custody. They did not permit someone to begin such a case after release from custody.

The court declined to reconsider the results of Williams’s earlier related habeas proceedings. It stated that any challenge to those proceedings had to be brought before the court that decided them, followed by an appeal if appropriate.

Disposition

The court granted Williams’s motion for reconsideration, overruled his objections to the magistrate judge’s report, adopted the report, and dismissed the petition with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, close the case, and mail Williams a copy of the opinion.