Bass v. Goodman

208 N.Y.S.3d 456

Johann Alexander BASS, Plaintiff,

v.Superintendent GOODMAN, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Albany County.

Decided on March 26, 2024

Petitioner: Pro Se

Respondent: New York State Office of the Attorney General (Anthony Huntley, Esq.)

David M. Gandin, J.

Petitioner, an incarcerated individual at Greene Correctional Facility, commenced this CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking mandamus relief. He alleges respondent wrongfully refused to process his request pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("LAD") (see CPL 580.20) for extradition to Lake County Indiana to stand trial on a pending criminal charge. Respondent’s pre-answer motion to dis- miss for failure to state a claim was denied on January 22, 2024.

[1–3] "The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought." Matter of Gonzalez v. Annucci, 136 A.D.3d 909, 910, 26 N.Y.S.3d 151 (2d Dept. 2016). "[T]he act sought to be compelled must be ministerial, nondiscretionary and nonjudgmental." Matter of Johnson v. Fischer, 104 A.D.3d 1004, 1005, 960 N.Y.S.2d 559 (3d Dept. 2013). "The availability of the remedy depends not on the [petitioner’s] substantive entitlement to prevail, but on the nature of the duty sought to be commanded—i.e., mandatory, nondiscretionary action." Matter of Brusco v. Braun, 84 N.Y.2d 674, 679, 621 N.Y.S.2d 291, 645 N.E.2d 724 (1994).

[4] The IAD is an interstate compact "designed to standardize interstate rendition procedures in order to protect [an] inmate’s right to speedy trial and reduce any uncertainties which might obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation." People ex rel. Capalongo v. Howard, 87 A.D.2d 242, 243, 453 N.Y.S.2d 45 (3d Dept. 1982). "[I]ts purpose is to encourage the expeditious disposition of such charges and to provide cooperative procedures among member States to facilitate such disposition." U. S. v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978). The agreement "shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate its purposes." CPL § 580.20, art. IX, subd. [1]. To this end, "[a]ll courts, departments, agencies, officers and employees of this state and its political subdivisions are hereby directed to enforce the agreement on detainers and to cooperate with one another and with other party states in enforcing the agreement and effectuating its purposes." CPL § 580.20, art. IX, subd. [3].

Article III of the IAD permits a person serving a term of imprisonment in a party state to make a written request for "a final disposition to be made of [an] indictment, information or complaint" pending in any other party state "on the basis of which a detainer has been lodged against the prisoner …" CPL § 580.20, art. III, subd. [a]. To commence the rendition process the incarcerated individual must deliver the written request to "the warden, commissioner of correction or other official having custody of him," whereupon that officer "shall promptly forward it … to the appropriate prosecuting official and court by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested." CPL § 580.20, art. III, subd. [b]. "The warden, commissioner of correction or other official having custody of the prisoner shall forthwith notify all appropriate prosecuting officers and courts in the several jurisdictions within the state to which the prisoner’s request for final disposition is being sent of the proceeding being initiated by the prisoner." CPL § 580.20, art. III, subd. [d].

The record before the Court demonstrates that petitioner stands accused of one count of intimidation and one count of criminal mischief in the State of Indiana. On or about September 15, 2021, the Lake County Superior Court issued a warrant for petitioner’s arrest. Upon learning of the warrant petitioner, who was incarcerated at the time in New York, wrote the Indiana court a letter citing the IAD and requesting a final disposition on the charges. In a March 7, 2022 order, a magistrate in Indiana issued an order denying petitioner’s request to be extradited from New York but directing the Lake County Sheriff to "show that the warrant issued in this case is to serve as a detainer and the warrant … placed in the NCIC/IDACS system." Petitioner subsequently moved to dismiss the Lake County charge for failure to comply with the IAD. The Indiana court denied the motion stating that to be deemed a valid "request for disposition" under the IAD petitioner had to first submit his request to the official having custody over him. Petitioner asserts that he forwarded the superior court’s order to respondent along with a request to initiate rendition proceedings. In a memorandum addressed to petitioner dated July 26, 2023, respondent’s staff acknowledged petitioner’s request and the existence of the Indiana charges but indicated that it could not honor the request because petitioner had "no warrants or detainers lodged." Respondent further asserted that she could not process petitioner’s transfer request without a physical copy of the Indiana warrant.

Respondent contends that mandamus does not lie because a detainer within the meaning of the IAD has not been lodged against petitioner. She maintains that because the lodging of a detainer is a prerequisite to initiating a rendition request there is no obligation to transmit petitioner’s request for a final disposition to Lake County. Respondent also asserts that on November 16, 2021 the superior court issued an order indicating that it would only extradite petitioner if the request originated within a 250 mile radius. In support respondent submits a copy of the superior court’s order as well as an NCIC printout which contains inter alia petitioner’s pedigree information, details concerning the pending Lake County charges and the court’s...