Greeman v. State of New York
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-04300
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Greeman v. State of New York, Judge Failla administratively closed a duplicate habeas action and treated its petition as supplemental to the earlier case.
Edward Greeman's second federal petition was administratively closed as a separate case and transferred into his earlier pending habeas action as a supplemental petition. The order also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Greeman v. State of New York, Edward Greeman filed a second petition challenging the same New York conviction already challenged in an earlier federal case. The court found the two petitions substantially similar.
Because the earlier case was still pending, the second petition was not treated as a second or successive petition. Instead, the court treated it as an additional filing in the earlier case.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the clerk to administratively close the second case, file its petition in the earlier case as a supplemental petition, and place a copy of the order in that case. She also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Greeman v. State of New York · No. 1:22-cv-04300
- Katherine Failla
- June 10, 2022
Background
On May 25, 2022, Edward Greeman filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his January 23, 2020, New York County judgment of conviction. The conviction followed a jury verdict finding him guilty of 15 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, nine counts of criminal tampering in the first degree, and criminal impersonation in the second degree. That petition was filed in an earlier action, docket number 22 Civ. 4300.
On June 1, 2022, Greeman filed this second § 2254 petition challenging the same conviction. The clerk opened it as a separate action, docket number 22 Civ. 4519. In the earlier action, the court had replaced the State of New York as respondent with the Superintendent of Fishkill Correctional Facility and had set deadlines for the State's response and Greeman's reply.
Court's analysis
The court explained that the second petition was not a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) because the earlier petition was still pending. The court further explained that the second petition could be treated as an amended or supplemental petition in the earlier action. Because the two petitions were substantially similar, the court construed the petition in this action as supplemental to the petition in docket number 22 Civ. 4300.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the clerk to administratively close docket number 22 Civ. 4519, file the petition currently docketed as entry 2 in that case as a supplemental petition in docket number 22 Civ. 4300, and file a copy of the order in the earlier action. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The order did not decide the merits of Greeman's challenge to his conviction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.