Graziani v. Maldonado

Filing 7

ORDER Dismissing Petition. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 3/30/2015.(Saner, K)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
PAUL GRAZIANI,
Petitioner,
v.
EDWARD MALDONADO,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
Case No. 3:14CV1590 (RNC)

RULING AND ORDER
Petitioner Paul Graziani, a Connecticut inmate proceeding
pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254.

For the reasons that follow, the petition is denied

without prejudice.
I.

Background
In 2010, petitioner pleaded guilty to a violation of his

probation and was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment.

He

did not appeal but instead filed a state habeas action claiming
that his conviction had been obtained in violation of his rights
to effective assistance of counsel and due process.

See Graziani

v. Warden, 10-CV-4003759-S (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 16, 2010).1
In 2013, the petition was denied after an evidentiary hearing and
petitioner appealed.

1

See Graziani v. Comm'r, AC-35590 (Conn.

Connecticut Superior Court records documenting
petitioner’s state habeas petition may be accessed by searching
under Civil/Family Case Look-Up and entering the case number 10CV-4003759-S under Docket Number Search at
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/GetDocket.aspx (last visited March
28, 2015).

App. Ct. Apr. 26, 2013).2

The appeal is still pending and has

not yet been fully briefed.3

Petitioner asks this Court to

review his claims on the ground that the state action is
“stalled.”
II.

Standard of Review
A federal court may entertain a petition for habeas corpus

challenging a state court conviction if the petitioner claims
that his custody violates the Constitution or federal laws.
U.S.C. § 2254(a).

28

Before filing a habeas petition in federal

court, a state prisoner must exhaust state court remedies.

See

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999); 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1)(A).

The exhaustion requirement is satisfied by

presenting the factual and legal bases of the federal claims to
the highest court of the state, either through direct or
collateral review.

See O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845; Galdamez v.

Keane, 394 F.3d 68, 73-74 (2d Cir. 2005).
III. Discussion
Petitioner has not satisfied the exhaustion requirement.
His federal habeas petition raises the same claims now pending

2

Connecticut Appellate Court records documenting
petitioner’s appeal of the decision dismissing/denying the state
habeas petition may be accessed by entering the case number AC35590 at http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/AppealNoInq.aspx
(last visited March 28, 2015).
3

The state's brief is due May 29, 2015. See Graziani v.
Comm'r, AC-35590 (Conn. App. Ct. Apr. 26, 2013).
2

before the Appellate Court.

A federal court may grant habeas

relief to a state prisoner on a claim that has not been exhausted
if the state process is “ineffective to protect the rights of the
petitioner.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(B)(ii).

Inordinate delay by

the state in processing a habeas claim may render the state
remedy ineffective.

See Chowlewinski v. Armstrong, No.

3:98CV1964(DSRU), 2000 WL 303252, *3 (D. Conn. Feb. 16, 2000).
Even substantial delay does not justify dispensing with the
exhaustion requirement, however, if a previously stalled state
habeas proceeding is moving forward.

See Swain v. Murphy,

3:08CV1394(RNC), 2010 WL 1279051, *2 (D. Conn. March 26, 2010).
In this case, the state petition has been the subject of an
evidentiary hearing, a decision has been issued by the habeas
court, petitioner has appealed and the appeal is pending.

In

these circumstances, petitioner is not excused from exhausting
his available state court remedies.
IV.

Conclusion
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

hereby denied without prejudice.

The Clerk may close the file.

So ordered this 30th day of March, 2015.

/s/RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge

3