Walsh v. Wesley et al
MEMORANDUM regarding 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 9/26/2016. (nms)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Civil Action No. 16-615-RGA
STEVEN WESLEY, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
Presently pending before the Court is Petitioner Howard Walsh' Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (D.I. 1) In November 2015, a Delaware Superior
Court jury found Petitioner guilty of three counts of possession of a firearm by a person
prohibited and other offenses. (D.I. 1 at 1) The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed his
convictions on June 29, 2016. See Walsh v. State, 2016 WL 3751911, at *3 (Del. June 29, 2016).
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on July 18, 2016, which contains four claims challenging his
2015 conviction. (D.I. 1at4-10) The Petition also contains a statement from Petitioner that he
still has a post-conviction motion pending before the Delaware Superior Court. (D.I. 1 at 7)
A federal district court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition "if it plainly appears
from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief." Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief unless
he has exhausted state remedies for his habeas claims by "fairly presenting" the substance of the
claims to the state's highest court, either on direct appeal or in a post-conviction proceeding, and
in a procedural manner permitting the state courts to consider them on the merits. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(l)(A); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d
506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997).
Given Petitioner's statement about his pending post-conviction motion, it plainly appears
that Petitioner has not yet exhausted state remedies. 1 Accordingly, the Court will summarily
dismiss Petitioner's§ 2254 Petition without prejudice. The Court will also decline to issue a
certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011); United
States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1997). A separate Order follows.
Dated: September..kft.._, 2016
Habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be filed within a one-year limitations
period. Petitioner is responsible for determining the events that trigger and toll the limitations
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?