OPINION AND ORDER Respondent J. Noeth (“Respondent”) moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss as untimely the application of petitioner Anthony Williams (“Williams”) under 28 U.S.C. §2254 for a writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. No. 26. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted. BACKGROUND The Court accepts “all facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir. 2008). It also construes the submissions of the pro se petitioner liberally “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006)); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed.’” (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976))). However, “dismissal of a pro se complaint is [] appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements.” Rahman v. Schriro, 22 F. Supp. 3d 305, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 65 (2d Cir. 1997)). Thus, the Court’s “duty to liberally construe a plaintiff’s complaint is not the equivalent of a duty to re-write it.” Geldzahler v. N.Y. Med. Coll., 663 F. Supp. 2d 379, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Moore’s Federal Practice). The Court also considers arguments and facts raised by the pro se petitioner “in opposition papers to the extent that they are consistent with the complaint, treating the new factual allegations as amending the original complaint.” Davila v. Lang, 343 F. Supp. 3d 254, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); see also Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 122 n.1 (2d Cir. 2013) (“A district court deciding a motion to dismiss may consider factual allegations made by a pro se party in his papers opposing the motion.”); Brooks v. Jackson, 2013 WL 5339151, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013) (“[B]ecause a pro se plaintiff’s allegations must be construed liberally, it is appropriate for a court to consider factual allegations made in a pro se plaintiff’s opposition memorandum, as long as the allegations are consistent with the complaint.”). I. Williams’ State-Court Convictions On June 14, 2013, Williams was convicted in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County on charges of first-degree criminal contempt, second-degree falsely reporting an incident, second-degree burglary, second-degree criminal contempt, third-degree assault, and forcible touching. Dkt. No. 1 (“Pet.”)
1, 5; Dkt. No. 26. (“Watson Decl.”) 5. On September 17, 2013, the court sentenced Williams to an aggregate minimum term of seventeen-and-one-sixth years of imprisonment and five years of post-release supervision. Pet. 3; Watson Decl. 5. On February 21, 2019, Williams’ conviction was affirmed by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department. People v. Williams, 169 A.D.3d 567 (1st Dep’t Feb. 21, 2019). By letter dated February 25, 2019, Williams applied for leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals. Watson Decl. 10. On June 14, 2019, the New York Court of Appeals denied Williams’ application for leave to appeal. People v. Williams, 33 N.Y.3d 1075(2019). Williams did not subsequently petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court or file a New York Criminal Procedure Law §440.10 motion to vacate his judgment on the basis of facts outside the record. Pet.
