Shoy v. Harris
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-00084
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Lorenzo Shoy v. Anthony Annucci, Judge Swain gave Shoy 30 days to explain why his habeas petition should not be dismissed as untimely.
Lorenzo Shoy, whose federal petition was not dismissed in this order but was required to be supported by a declaration explaining its apparent untimeliness; Anthony Annucci was not required to answer at this stage.
What happened
In Lorenzo Shoy v. Anthony Annucci, Lorenzo Shoy challenged his 2017 New York conviction in a petition seeking federal review of his state-court conviction. The court found that the petition appeared to have been filed after the one-year deadline.
The court concluded that the deadline was September 13, 2021, while Shoy’s original petition appeared to have been filed in December 2021. It explained that the reported law-library closure from December 28, 2021, through January 14, 2022, did not explain the earlier delay, although other forms of deadline extension might apply.
The court, in an order signed by Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain, extended Shoy’s time by 30 days to file a declaration explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. It did not require the respondent to answer at that time, and it denied a certificate allowing an appeal and fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Shoy v. Harris · No. 1:22-cv-00084
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 4, 2022
Background
Lorenzo Shoy, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and represented himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2017 conviction in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County. The court had previously directed him to explain why the petition should not be denied as untimely. A law librarian later reported that the facility’s law library was closed from December 28, 2021, through January 14, 2022.
Timeliness analysis
A federal petition challenging a state conviction generally must be filed within one year from the applicable date specified by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). The court stated that the state appellate division affirmed Shoy’s conviction on December 26, 2019, and that the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on April 15, 2020. Because the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily extended the deadline for seeking review from 90 days to 150 days during the relevant period, the court determined that the conviction became final on September 13, 2020. The one-year filing period therefore expired on September 13, 2021.
Shoy’s original application was dated December 2021, and the court treated it as filed in December 2021. The court said that this was several months after the deadline. It also explained that the law-library closure beginning December 28, 2021, did not by itself show that the original petition was timely, because the petition already appeared late by then.
The court identified two possible forms of tolling, meaning an extension or pause of the filing period. Statutory tolling might apply if Shoy had properly filed a state postconviction motion before September 13, 2021. Equitable tolling might apply if he had pursued his rights diligently but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The court also noted a possible issue about whether Shoy’s amended petition, filed January 20, 2022, related back to the original petition’s filing date.
Order and disposition
The court extended by 30 days from the order’s date the time for Shoy to file a declaration explaining why the petition should not be dismissed as time-barred. It directed him to provide information about any state postconviction applications, motions, appeals, decisions, and notices of those decisions. If he timely filed a sufficient declaration, the court would review it and, if appropriate, order the respondent to answer. If he failed to comply or could not show that the petition was timely, the court stated that it would deny the petition as time-barred.
The court did not require an answer at that time. It also stated that Shoy had not made the required showing for a certificate of appealability, so no certificate would issue. The court denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.