Gentile v. Latona

Background

Joseph J. Gentile, Jr. was incarcerated at Mohawk Correctional Facility and represented himself. His original complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims against state officials for violations of federal rights. It included claims about both the conditions of his confinement and the length of his confinement.

Gentile alleged that Social Worker M. Feuz retaliated against him while he participated in the Sex Offender Counseling and Treatment Program at Fishkill Correctional Facility. He also challenged the failure to release him in April 2021 after the state prison system reconsidered his good-time credits. A prison time-allowance committee recommended holding his good-time credits until he completed required programming, and that recommendation was confirmed in June 2021.

The court previously found that the original complaint did not adequately state constitutional claims under Section 1983 and gave Gentile an opportunity to amend. Gentile then filed a pleading titled as a petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal statute used by state prisoners to challenge the validity or duration of custody. He sought only habeas relief and named Feuz, Edward Burnett, John Wood, and Luis Gonzalez rather than his current custodian.

Claims and analysis

The court construed the amended pleading as a Section 2254 petition and directed the Clerk of Court to open a new habeas action. The court treated the superintendent of Mohawk Correctional Facility as the respondent in that new action and kept the existing case open as a civil-rights action.

The court explained that a Section 2254 petition may challenge a state prison or parole decision affecting the fact or length of confinement. Gentile’s petition, however, did not challenge the decision to hold his good-time credits or identify a procedural defect in that decision.

Gentile’s first two grounds challenged how New York state courts handled his state habeas proceedings. He argued that the state court improperly accepted an allegedly late opposition brief and that the Appellate Division and New York Court of Appeals failed to intervene. The court held that these allegations concerned state-court procedures, not a constitutional challenge to a prison decision affecting execution of his sentence, and therefore were not cognizable in a Section 2254 petition.

Gentile’s remaining ground concerned Feuz’s alleged conduct and his removal from the treatment program. The court said that this claim could be understood as a First Amendment retaliation claim or as a challenge to the recommendation that he be removed from the program. The court held that these allegations concerned conditions of confinement and did not themselves affect the length of his confinement. It stated that a retaliation claim against Feuz should be brought under Section 1983, not in a Section 2254 proceeding.

The court noted that the June 2021 decision to hold Gentile’s good-time credits was the decision that affected the length of his confinement. But Gentile did not raise a procedural due process challenge to that decision in the petition. The court therefore concluded that the petition did not assert any ground for relief cognizable under Section 2254.

Rulings and deadlines

The court denied the Section 2254 petition with leave to replead. Gentile was given 30 days to file an amended petition raising a cognizable challenge, such as a procedural due process challenge to the hearing or decision concerning his good-time credits. The court warned that a new petition repeating the rejected grounds or failing to state a cognizable ground would be denied without another opportunity to amend. The court also noted that any amended petition might face separate issues concerning the filing deadline and exhaustion of state-court remedies, but it did not decide those issues in this order.

Because the existing filing did not clearly replead the Section 1983 claims, the court extended Gentile’s time by 30 days to file an amended civil-rights complaint in the existing case. If he chose to proceed with that action, he also had to submit a new signed prisoner authorization form. If he did not file the amended complaint, the civil-rights action would be dismissed for the reasons stated in the earlier order to amend.

The court explained that two filing fees had properly been assessed because claims from the original action had been severed and transferred as a separate action rather than transferred in its entirety. It stated that if Gentile filed an amended civil-rights complaint but did not submit the required authorization, the previously duplicated fee collection would be returned, but he could not proceed with the civil-rights action without paying the second filing fee.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Gentile’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice because the claims presented in the habeas petition were not cognizable. The court also declined to act on submissions concerning Gentile’s claimed innocence because the validity of his Queens County conviction was not at issue in this action. Finally, the court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue and denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.