GARCIA v. WOLCOTT (2024)

ORDER

Pro se Petitioner, Frank Garcia, is an inmate at the Attica Correctional Facility. He submitted a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docket Item 1. Petitioner claims that he was convicted in the county court of Monroe County, New York, in violation of his constitutional rights. Id. The Petition purports to seek vacatur of Petitioner's convictions for two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. Id. at p. 24.

Now before the Court is Respondent's Motion for a More Definite Statement and for an Extension of Time to Answer, ECF No. 9. In support of the Motion for a More Definite Statement, Respondent states in pertinent part:

Respondent cannot reasonably prepare a response to the pro se petition (Dkt. No. 1) in the absence of a more definite statement by petitioner as to his claims for habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition describes dozens of claims allegedly raised in state court. Yet the petition, as more fully explained below, fails to specify which claims petitioner is advancing as federal habeas claims.

The resulting ambiguity improperly leaves this Court and respondent to speculate as to the claims advanced. Therefore, petitioner should be directed to file a more definite statement specifying the parts of the petition that state his federal habeas claims and the supporting facts for each claim.

Supporting Memo of Law at p. 1.

Motions for a more definite statement are generally disfavored, though they may be appropriate where they are warranted and not made for purposes of delay:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides, “[i]f a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading.” Motions for a more definite statement are generally disfavored by the courts because of their dilatory effect. However, the Second Circuit has also acknowledged that a motion for a more definite statement is an appropriate mechanism to balance the Circuit's direction regarding the liberal reading of pro se pleadings and the needs of a respondent to address the merits of a claim. See Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 128-29 (2d Cir. 2005).

Martinez v. O'Connell, No. 9:06CV0887(DNH)(RFT), 2007 WL 189335, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2007) (other citations omitted). In this regard, “[i]t is not the responsibility of the Court nor the Respondent to sort through the state court records and speculate on the facts Petitioner asserts in support of each ground. Rather, that information must be set forth in the Petition.” Id.

Here, it does not appear that Respondent's motion is being asserted to delay the action, and the Court agrees with Respondent that the Petition does not clearly indicate what Federal claims are being raised, even when liberally construed. The 26-page Petition is neatly typed and sets forth a vast amount of information concerning the claims raised in Petitioner's state-court proceedings. However, while the Petition describes a myriad of alleged errors in the state proceedings, such errors, even if they occurred, do not necessarily amount to violations of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,¹ and the Petition does not indicate what federal claims are being asserted.

Nor is the Petition set forth on a pre-printed form. In that regard, Rule 2(d) of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts states:

Standard Form. The petition must substantially follow either the form appended to these rules or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule. The clerk must make forms available to petitioners without charge.

Notably, the pre-printed form used by this Court for Section 2254 petitions requires petitioners to set forth each federal “ground” being raised and the facts supporting such grounds. The instant Petition appears to substantially track such a form, at least with regard to setting forth the claims that were raised in state court. The Petition falls short, however, with regard to specifying what federal grounds are being asserted in this action as violations of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion for a more definite statement (ECF No. 9) is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send to Petitioner a copy of the form Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody and a copy of the form Instructions for completing Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In State Custody; and it is further

ORDERED that Petitioner is not required to restate all the information concerning his state court proceedings, but he is required to complete numbered paragraphs 22-24 of the form Petition and to sign the Petition; and it is further

ORDERED that Petitioner's form Petition is due is due within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order. Petitioner is warned that his failure to submit a signed form Petition with paragraphs 22-24 completed may result in the dismissal without prejudice of this action; and it is further

ORDERED that the deadline for Respondent to respond to the Petition is vacated. A new briefing schedule will issue after Petitioner files his form Petition and the Court screens it.

SO ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See, e.g., Murray v. Noeth, 32 F.4th 154, 157 (2d Cir. 2022) (“Section 2254(a) provides that a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a state criminal defendant ‘only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’ See also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (“In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). Federal habeas relief is therefore not available for errors of state law. Id. at 67, 112 S.Ct. 475 (citing Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, 110 S.Ct. 3092, 111 L.Ed.2d 606 (1990)).”), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 143 S. Ct. 270, 214 L. Ed. 2d 116 (2022).

CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE