Connelly v. Semple

Filing 6

ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 12/17/2014. (Reardon, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
WILLIAM CONNELLY,
Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT SEMPLE,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:14cv1531(RNC)

RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner, a Connecticut prisoner proceeding pro se, brings
this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
challenging a change in Department of Correction policy regarding
eligibility dates for transitional supervision.

He claims that

he has a right to be released from custody sooner than the new
policy would permit.

Because the petition shows that petitioner

has not exhausted state court remedies, the petition is dismissed
without prejudice.
The rules governing § 2254 allow sua sponte dismissal when
it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.”
Section 2254 Cases, Rule 4.

Rule Governing

As petitioner acknowledges, a

federal court ordinarily may not entertain a state prisoner’s
claim for habeas relief unless the petitioner has exhausted state
court remedies.

See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842,

119 S. Ct. 1728, 144 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
A petitioner fails to exhaust unless he gives 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, 526 U.S. at 845.

Petitioner filed a state habeas petition in June 2014
presenting the claim he seeks to adjudicate here but the state
court declined to review the petition pursuant to Connecticut
Practice Book § 23-24(a)(3).

ECF No. 1, at 30.1

Petitioner

states that the state court’s action effectively prevented him
from proceeding further in the state judicial system.

But a

petitioner aggrieved by a declination under § 23-24(a) may seek
certification to appeal and, if certification is denied, may
appeal the denial.

See Fuller v. Comm'r of Corr., 144 Conn. App.

375, 377 (2013) (reviewing habeas court's declination under § 2324(a)(1) after

habeas court "granted the petitioner

certification to appeal from the dismissal of her habeas
petition"); Coleman v. Comm'r of Corr., 111 Conn. App. 138, 140
(2008) ("Following the [habeas] court's refusal to issue the writ
[under § 23-24(a)(3)], the petitioner timely filed a petition for
certification to appeal from the court's decision. . . . This
appeal followed.").

To properly exhaust, then, petitioner is

obliged to seek certification to appeal.
Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed without

1

Section 23-24(a)(3) provides: "The judicial authority shall
promptly review any petition for a writ of habeas corpus to
determine whether the writ should issue. The judicial authority
shall issue the writ unless it appears that . . . the relief
sought is not available."
2

prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

Because

reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that the
petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies, a
certificate of appealability will not issue.

See Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
So ordered this 17th day of December 2014.
/s/
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge

3