Charlotten v. Hilton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BRANDON J. CHARLOTTEN,
Petitioner,
-v- 9:24-CV-1491
BRYAN HILTON, Superintendent
of the Mid-State Correctional Facility
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:
BRANDON J. CHARLOTTEN
Petitioner, Pro Se
23-B-3326
Mid-State Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 500
Elmira, New York 14902
HON. LETITIA A. JAMES JAMES F. GIBBONS, ESQ.
Attorney General of the
State of New York
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-0341
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On November 25, 2024, petitioner Brandon J. Charlotten (“petitioner”),
acting pro se, filed a writ of habeas corpus petition in the Eastern District of
Case 9:24-cv-01491-DNH-MJK Document 17 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against defendant the State of New
York.1 Dkt. No. 1. Briefly stated, on July 14, 2023, petitioner plead guilty to:
1) arson in the third degree; and 2) assault in the second degree in Chenango
County Court. Id. Petitioner now contends he did not receive credit for time
served before his plea and sentencing––i.e., a total of 576 days. Id. On
December 9, 2024, the petition was transferred to the Northern District of
New York. Dkt. Nos. 4–5.
On June 13, 2025, respondent moved for leave to file a motion to dismiss
the petition without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
Respondent argues that plaintiff’s habeas petition should be dismissed as
unexhausted because petitioner has failed to prove that he has exhausted his
state court remedies as to any of the claims in his petition. Respondent’s
Memorandum, Dkt. No. 12-2. Notably, respondent contends that plaintiff
filed a motion to vacate judgment pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L. § 440.10 in
Chenango County Court but withdrew the motion before it was ever decided.
Id.
On June 16, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz granted
respondent’s motion and provided petitioner thirty days to respond. Dkt. No.
1 Thereafter, on December 30, 2024, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz issued a Decision &
Order finding petitioner incorrectly named “The People of the State of New York” as the respondent
and ordered the case caption be updated to instead reflect Bryan Hilton, Superintendent of the Mid-
State Correctional Facility (hereafter the “Respondent”). Dkt. No. 6.
Case 9:24-cv-01491-DNH-MJK Document 17 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
13. On July 9, 2025, petitioner filed their response contending that: 1) he has
exhausted all state remedies as to his claims; 2) a motion to vacate the
judgment was filed in Chenango County Court; and 3) the motion filed in
Chenango County Court was withdrawn by his counsel without his consent.
Dkt. No. 14.
On October 24, 2025, Judge Katz issued a Report & Recommendation
(“R&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 72.3(c)
recommending that: 1) respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted; and 2) the
§ 2255 petition be dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. No. 16. In support,
Judge Katz advised that petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies
as required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) or otherwise show that the state court record at issue in this
matter received any further review from the state courts after withdrawing
his C.P.L. § 440.10 motion in Chenango County Court. Id.
Judge Katz further recommended that the Court decline to stay the
petition. Dkt. No. 16. In support, Judge Katz advised that petitioner has
failed to exhaust his state court remedies or otherwise demonstrate that they
are meritorious. Id. Judge Katz also advised that petitioner has made no
request for the petition to be stayed and that even if petitioner had, such
request would still be denied because the petition lacks merit. Id.
Specifically, Judge Katz advised that the state court record indicates
Case 9:24-cv-01491-DNH-MJK Document 17 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
petitioner was granted the time-served credit against his aggregate sentence.
Id. Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the deadline to do so has passed.
See id.
Upon review for clear error, Judge Katz’s R&R is accepted and will be
adopted in all respects. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED in all respects;
2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 12) is GRANTED;
3. The petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
4. The Clerk is directed serve a copy of this Order on plaintiff by regular
mail.
The Clerk is further directed to terminate the pending motions (Dkt. Nos.
1, 12) and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2025
Utica, New York.
Case 9:24-cv-01491-DNH-MJK Document 17 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 4