United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division
MICHAEL J. BARNES, Petitioner,
SGT. SHANNON ROLLINS, et al., Respondents.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RUSS WALKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is Petitioner's application for habeas corpus
relief under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2241. Petitioner is an inmate
incarcerated at the Chambers County Detention Facility in
LaFayette, Alabama. He challenges the legality of his
pre-trial detention, claiming that he is being held illegally
on a violation of the Sex Offender Reporting Notification Act
(âSORNAâ), and requests that he be released from custody.
answer filed on January 7, 2019, Respondents assert that
Petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies
regarding each claim pending before this court. Specifically,
Respondents maintain hat Petitioner may challenge his
pretrial detention based upon the validity and sufficiency of
the complaint and arrest warrant for his violation of Ala.
Code § 15-20A-10 by presenting his claims in state
court. Doc. 10 at 3-4. In light of this argument, the court
entered an order affording Petitioner an opportunity to show
cause why this habeas petition should not be dismissed for
his failure to exhaust remedies available to him in the state
courts. Petitioner filed no response.
the statutory language of § 2241 itself does not contain
a requirement that a petitioner exhaust state remedies, . . .
the requirements of § 2254 - including exhaustion of
state remedies - apply to” Petitioner as he challenges
the validity of state court actions which resulted in his
confinement and remain a potential basis for his confinement
until resolution of the criminal charges pending against him
in the state courts of Pike County, Alabama. Dill v.
Holt, 371 F.3d 1301, 1302 (11th Cir. 2004).
“‘[T]he writ of habeas corpus is a single
post-conviction remedy principally governed by two different
statutes,' § 2241 and § 2254, with the second
of those statutes serving to limit the authority granted in
the first one. [Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049,
1059-1062 (11th Cir. 2003)]. For that reason, even though
[Petitioner] brought his petition seeking habeas relief under
§ 2241, he is nevertheless subject to § 2254's
exhaustion requirement” because the custody he seeks to
challenge arises from the orders of a state court.
Dill, 371 F.3d at 1302-1303.
directs that this court shall not grant relief on a petition
for writ of habeas corpus “unless it appears that the
applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts
of the State ...” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(1)(b)(1)(A).
State remedies ordinarily are not considered exhausted if a
petitioner may present his claims to the state courts by any
available and adequate procedure. Braden v. 30th Judicial
Circuit Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973). “To
satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the petitioner must have
fairly presented the substance of his federal claim to the
state courts.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,
27-78 (1971). To exhaust fully, “state prisoners must
give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any
constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the
State's established appellate review process.”
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 828, 845
(1999); Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 432
(5th Cir. 1985).
Petitioner has not shown that he has exhausted his available
state court remedies regarding each claims in the petition
for habeas corpus relief. This court does not deem it
appropriate to rule on the merits of Petitioner's claims
without first requiring that he exhaust state remedies.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(1)(b)(2). Consequently,
the court concludes that the petition for habeas corpus
relief should be dismissed without prejudice so Petitioner
can pursue his available state court remedies.
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the
petition for habeas corpus relief be DENIED and the petition
be DISMISSED without prejudice to afford Petitioner an
opportunity to exhaust all available state court remedies.
that on or before April 16,
2019, the parties may file an objection. Any
objection filed must specifically identify the factual
findings and legal conclusions in the Magistrate Judge's
Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous,
conclusive or general objections will not be considered by
the District Court.
to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall
bar a party from a de novo determination by the
District Court of factual findings and legal issues covered
in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge
on appeal the district court's order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except
upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of
justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution ...