Baird v. Hodge

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 4/7/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIS BAIRD,
K-81582,
Petitioner,
vs.
MARCUS HODGE,
Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-00349-DRH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Petitioner Willis Baird, who is currently incarcerated in Lawrence
Correctional Center (“Lawrence”), brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Baird contends that although he became eligible for
mandatory supervised release on October 3, 2013, the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) failed to find a placement for him that would comply with
the conditions mandated by the Prisoner Review Board. (Doc. 1, p. 17). Having
been found to be in violation of the terms of his release, Baird was forced to
remain incarcerated at Lawrence.

Baird asserts that he is being unlawfully

confined and that IDOC’s failure to find a suitable placement for him violates his
constitutional rights. (Doc. 1, p. 17).
This matter is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in United States District
Courts. Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court

Page 1 of 5

judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” After carefully reviewing the
petition, the Court concludes that Baird has failed to exhaust all means of
available relief under state law. Accordingly, because the claims presented here
have not been exhausted, federal habeas corpus review is premature.
Procedural History
In 2000, Baird was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for home invasion
(Lake County, Circuit Court No. 99-CF-3081) and 3 years imprisonment for
aggravated criminal sexual abuse (Lake County Circuit Court No. 99-CF-928).
(Doc. 1, pp. 26-27). The sentences were to run consecutively. Id. Accounting for
both good conduct credits earned and lost, Baird became eligible for mandatory
supervised release on October 3, 2013. Id. at 28. However, in order to comply
with the conditions mandated by the Prisoner Review Board, Baird had to be
released to a site that could provide electronic monitoring. According to a “Parole
Violation Report” dated October 3, 2013, the Illinois Department of Corrections
could not locate a suitable placement for Baird, and consequently Baird could not
comply with the conditions of his mandatory supervised release. Id. As a result,
Baird remains incarcerated at Lawrence.
On October 8, 2013, Baird filed a habeas corpus petition in the Second
Judicial Circuit Court of Lawrence County, Illinois (No. 13-MR-60) seeking

Page 2 of 5

immediate release from Lawrence. Id. at 4. Baird concedes in the present federal
habeas petition that his state habeas petition has not yet been heard. Id.
Discussion
Absent exceptional circumstances, a petitioner may not file a federal habeas
petition until he has exhausted all means of available relief under state law. 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b); O'Sullivan v. Boerkel, 526 U.S. 838, 839 (1999); Picard v.
Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); Kurzawa v. Jordan, 146 F.3d 435, 440 (7th
Cir. 1998). A petitioner “shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies
available . . . if he has the right under the law of the state to raise, by any available
procedure, the question presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). Before proceeding with
a review of a petition for habeas corpus on its merits,
[A] district court must make two inquiries – whether the petitioner
exhausted all available state remedies and whether the petitioner
raised all his claims during the course of the state proceedings. If the
answer to either of these inquiries is “no,” the petition is barred
either for failure to exhaust state remedies or for a procedural
default.
Farrell v. Lane, 939 F.2d 409, 410 (7th Cir. 1991). This requirement stems from
“the understanding that state courts are equally obliged to follow federal law and
from the desire for comity between state and federal court systems.” Spreitzer v.
Schomig, 219 F.3d 639, 644-45 (7th Cir. 2000).

Therefore, a petitioner must

have presented every claim included in the federal habeas petition in a petition for
discretionary review to a state court of last resort. O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 846-47.
Although Baird has filed a state habeas petition in the Second Judicial
Circuit of Lawrence County, Illinois, see Baird v. Hodge, 13-MR-60, he
Page 3 of 5

acknowledges in his federal habeas petition that the state court has not yet made
a ruling on his petition. (Doc. 1, p. 4).

Before this Court can even consider

Baird’s federal petition, he must exhaust all means of available relief under state
law, which includes review of his claims through the entire Illinois appellate
process, including the state’s highest court. Only then can this Court consider
Baird’s federal habeas petition. Based on the foregoing discussion, the habeas
petition (Doc. 1) shall be dismissed.
Disposition
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Should Baird desire to appeal this Court’s ruling dismissing his petition for
a writ of habeas corpus, he must first secure a certificate of appealability, either
from this Court or from the court of appeals.

See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, a certificate of appealability
may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”
This requirement has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that
an applicant must show that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While a petitioner need not show that his appeal will
succeed, Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003), he must show
“something more than the absence of frivolity” or the existence of mere “good

Page 4 of 5

faith” on his part. Id. at 338 (citation omitted). If the district court denies the
request, a petitioner may request that a circuit judge issue the certificate. Fed. R.
App. P. 22(b)(1)-(3).
For the reasons detailed above, the Court has determined that Baird has
failed to exhaust all state remedies available, and therefore he is not entitled to
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Furthermore, the Court finds no basis for a
determination that its decision is debatable or incorrect. Thus, petitioner has not
made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall NOT
be issued.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2014.04.07
15:30:03 -05'00'

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: APRIL 7, 2014

Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 5 of 5