Smith v. Biden et al
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 2 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, 8 AMENDED Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and 10 "Urgent Addendum". Signed by Judge Michael M. Baylson on 7/25/2011. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CIVIL ACTION
FRANKLIN C. SMITH
v.
COMMISSIONER CARL DANBERG, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF DELAWARE
NO. 11-415
MEMORANDUM
Baylson, J.
I.
July 25, 2011
Introduction
Petitioner Franklin C. Smith filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" (Doc. No.2)
along with an Amended Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No.8) (hereinafter
collectively referred to as "Petition"), and an "Urgent Addendum" (Doc. No.1 0). Petitioner was
housed at the Central Violation of Probation Center located in Smyrna, Delaware when he filed
the Petition. Upon independent and thorough review, the Court summarily denies the Petition
without prejudice and declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule
4,28 U.S.c. foIl. § 2254.
II.
Background
According to the Petition, Petitioner pled guilty to third degree burglary on January 18,
2011 and theft. (Doc. No.2 at ~~ 1-6) He was immediately sentenced to three years at Level V
incarceration, suspended after six (6) months for one (1) year at Level III on the burglary
conviction, and to one (1) year at Level V, suspended for one (1) year at Level III, for the theft
conviction, to be served consecutively. (Doc. No.2 at 32) Petitioner appealed, but the appeal
was returned on January 25,2011. (Doc. No.2 at ~~ 8-9)
Petitioner also asserts that he filed two petitions for the writ of habeas corpus in the
Delaware Superior Court challenging his pre-trial custody on the grounds of excessive bail and
involuntary commitment to the Delaware Psychiatric Center, which were denied in July 2010 and
September 2010. (Doc. No.2 at ~ 11)
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on May 12,2011 (and the amendment on May 31,
2011), and then an "urgent addendum" on June 9, 2011. The Petition asserts the follow grounds
for relief: (1) excessive bail; (2) coerced guilty plea; (3) double jeopardy violation; (4) due
process violations; and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner also assert miscellaneous
allegations regarding violations of the American with Disabilities Act ("ADA,,).I (Doc. No. 10;
Doc. No. 11)
III.
Standard of Review
Federal courts are required to liberally construe pro se filings. See Royce v. Hahn, 151
F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, a district court may summarily dismiss a habeas
petition "if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief." See Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foIL § 2254; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243
("A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall ... issue
an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it
appears from the face of the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
thereto.") Except in unusual circumstances, a petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief
unless he has exhausted state remedies for all of his habeas claims. 28 U.S.c. § 2254(b)(1)(A);
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). A petitioner demonstrates that a claim has been
IThese ADA "issues" are not cognizable on federal habeas review.
2
"exhausted" in state court by showing that he presented the legal and factual basis of each claim
to the Delaware Supreme Court. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995).
When a claim has not been exhausted but further state court review is clearly foreclosed,
the claim is deemed to be procedurally defaulted. Carpenter v. Vaughn, 296 F.3d l38, 147 (3d
Cir. 2002). Such procedurally defaulted claims may be reviewed in a federal habeas proceeding
upon a showing of cause and prejudice, or upon a showing that a miscarriage ofjustice will result
from lack of review. Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446,451 (2000); Lines v. Larkins, 208
F.3d 153, 160 (3d Cir. 2000). However, under § 2254(c), a petitioner will not be deemed to have
exhausted available state remedies ifhe has the right under the law of the state to raise, by any
available procedure, the question presented. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999).
Consequently, if a petitioner presents a federal court with a federal habeas application consisting
entirely of unexhausted claims, and further review of those claims is still available in the state
courts, the federal court will ordinarily dismiss the habeas application without prejudice in order
to give the petitioner an opportunity to present the unexhausted claims to the state courts. See
Rose, 455 U.S. at 519-22; Waples v. Phelps, 2008 WL 1743400, at *2 (D. Del. Apr. 16,2008).
IV. Discussion
The Petition indicates that Petitioner appealed his sentence and conviction, and that he
filed various post-conviction motions in the Delaware courts. However, Petitioner asserts that at
least one post-conviction motion is still pending in the Delaware Superior Court. 2 (Doc. No.2 at
2The Court acknowledges that Petitioner may be trying to contend that the Superior Court
decided his state petitions for habeas corpus and sentence modification too slowly and in a
manner unacceptable to him. Even if this second alternative is the situation in this case, there is
no indication that Petitioner appealed those possible decisions to the Delaware Supreme Court,
which, in turn, means that Petitioner has not exhausted state remedies.
3
6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 at ~ 15) Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to exhaust state court remedies. 3
V.
Writ of Mandamus
During the brief pendency of this proceeding, Petitioner filed a document titled "Writ of
Mandamus" asking for the return of his legal materials and gray tennis shoes that were
confiscated during his transfer to the Sussex Violation of Probation Center. (Doc. No. 12)
Petitioner then filed a letter explaining that the legal materials he seeks relate to a case presently
pending in the Eastern District of Virginia, Smith v. McCabe, 10-33-MSD (E.D. Va.).4 (Doc.
No. 13)
Whether Petitioner's request is construed as a request for mandamus relief or as a request
for a preliminary injunction, such extraordinary relief is difficult to obtain. For instance, to
obtain a writ of mandamus, Petitioner must satisfy the following three conditions: (1) he must
demonstrate that he has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires." Cheney v.
United States Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (citation omitted); (2) he must carry the
burden of showing that "his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable." Id. at 381
(citations omitted); and (3) "the issuing court ... must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate
under the circumstances." Id. In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, Petitioner must
demonstrate that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) denial will result in his irreparable
3Petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be filed within a one-year limitations
period. Acting pro se, Petitioner is responsible for determining the events that trigger and toll the
limitations period, as well as the time remaining in the limitations period once it starts again after
such tolling.
4Petitioner's proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia is an excessive force case with
trial presently scheduled to commence on December 13,2011.
4
injury; (3) granting the injunction will not irreparably harm the nonmoving party; and (4)
granting the injunction is in the public interest. Kos Pharrns., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700,
708 (3d Cir. 2004); Maldonado v. Houston, 157 F.3d 179,184 (3d Cir. 1997). Petitioner's
failure to establish anyone of these four factors renders injunctive relief improper. Nutrasweet
Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters" Inc., 176 F .3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999). Additionally, given the
intractable problems of prison administration, a request for injunctive relief in the prison context
must be viewed with considerable caution. Abraham v. Danberg, 322 F. App'x 169, 170 (3d Cir.
2009).
In this case, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate his entitlement
to a writ of mandamus or preliminary injunctive relief, because the confiscated legal materials he
seeks are unrelated to the instant habeas proceeding. Additionally, Petitioner may pursue the
return of his legal materials via a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim filed in this Court, demonstrating that
he has "other adequate means to attain the relief he desires" (condition for mandamus relief) and
that he will not be irreparably harmed by the Court's denial of the instant request (condition for
injunctive relief). Accordingly, the Court will deny the Writ of Mandamus.
VI.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court dismisses without prejudice the Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, and declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
An appropriate Order follows.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?