Clark v. The State of New York

Background

Eric Wade Clark, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a person in state custody to challenge custody on constitutional or other federal-law grounds. He sought discharge from sex-offender civil management under Article 10 of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law, or alternatively termination of his current Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment supervision.

Clark did not submit a completed habeas petition identifying his claims. Instead, he submitted a typewritten brief prepared for the New York Appellate Division, crossed out the state court’s name, wrote in the federal court’s name, and attached documents from his state proceedings and an earlier federal habeas action. He later submitted hundreds of additional pages, including duplicates.

The opinion recounts that Clark pleaded guilty to first-degree rape and second-degree kidnapping in 1985 and was sentenced to indeterminate prison terms of eight and one-third to twenty-five years. He was released on discretionary parole in 2003, returned to custody after parole was revoked in 2007, and conditionally released in 2012. New York courts later placed him under sex-offender civil management, and in 2019 he was discharged from confinement and released under supervision.

In 2021, Clark asked a New York state court for immediate discharge from civil management or termination of supervision. The state court denied immediate discharge and later denied termination of supervision, finding that Clark continued to have a mental abnormality and required civil management. The Appellate Division dismissed his appeal, ruling that one order was not appealable as of right, and denied leave to appeal. It also denied his motion for reargument.

Court’s analysis

Rule 2(c) of the rules governing § 2254 cases requires a habeas petition to identify every ground for relief, state the facts supporting each ground, and specify the requested relief. The court concluded that Clark’s filing did not meet those requirements because it did not clearly state his constitutional grounds, supporting facts, or legal theories. The court also noted that a federal court may screen a § 2254 petition and dismiss it without requiring a response from the state if the petition plainly does not show entitlement to relief.

Although the filing was deficient, the court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s papers liberally. The court therefore gave Clark an opportunity to amend rather than immediately denying the petition. The court instructed him to use the § 2254 amended-petition form, state each constitutional claim and its supporting facts, and describe the steps and dates of his efforts to exhaust those claims in New York courts. The court explained that an amended petition completely replaces the original, so Clark must include all information he wants considered in the amended filing.

Ruling and effect

The court directed Clark to file an amended petition with the Clerk’s Office within 60 days of the order, captioned “Amended Petition” and bearing the same docket number. The amended petition would be reviewed for substantive sufficiency and, if proper, the case would be reassigned under the Clerk’s Office procedures. The court stated that the petition would be denied if Clark failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause for the failure.

The court also ruled that Clark had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It certified that an 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 Clark’s requests for release from civil management or termination of supervision.