Rivera v. State of N.Y.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06328
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Rivera v. State of N.Y.: Judge Swain denied Rivera’s habeas petition without prejudice because his state appeal was pending.
William Rivera’s federal challenge to his state conviction was denied without prejudice because his state appeal was still pending; the court stated that he may file another federal petition after exhausting state remedies.
What happened
In Rivera v. State of N.Y., William Rivera filed a federal petition challenging his February 3, 2022, New York state-court conviction. He represented himself, and the opinion says his appeal was still pending in the state appellate court.
The court explained that people generally must finish available state-court challenges before seeking federal habeas relief. Because Rivera’s direct appeal had not ended, the court found that his petition was filed too early.
Judge Swain denied the petition without prejudice and denied leave to amend because an amendment could not fix the problem. The court also said that no certificate allowing an appeal would issue and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. State of N.Y. · No. 1:22-cv-06328
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
William Rivera, who was incarcerated at the Five Points Correctional Facility, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his February 3, 2022, conviction in New York Supreme Court, New York County. He filed the petition without a lawyer. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Rivera alleged that he had appealed his conviction to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, and that the appeal was still pending.
Exhaustion of State Remedies
Federal law generally requires a person seeking federal relief from a state conviction to first exhaust available remedies in the state courts. This means giving the state courts the first opportunity to consider the claimed errors. The court explained that Rivera needed to wait for the Appellate Division to decide his appeal and, if necessary, seek permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. The opinion also describes additional state-court procedures that may be required for claims raised through collateral motions.
Because Rivera’s direct appeal was pending, the court concluded that he had not fully exhausted his state remedies. It therefore treated the petition as prematurely filed.
Rulings
The court denied the § 2254 petition without prejudice as prematurely filed. The stated disposition allows Rivera to file another § 2254 petition after he has fully exhausted his state-court remedies. The court also denied leave to amend because it found that an amendment could not cure the petition’s defect.
The court ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the petition did not make a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal-related filing fee. Judgment was ordered to issue.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.