Middleton v. Jones et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 7/17/2017. (jaj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DWAYNE MIDDLETON,
No. Y-21267,
Petitioner,
v.

–361-DRH

DONALD R. JONES, and
CHET SHAFFER,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pro se Petitioner Dwayne J. Middleton filed this Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), asserting several due process claims in relation to his
then pending criminal action in Franklin County, Illinois (Case No. 2017-CF-62).
At the time the Petition was filed, Petitioner was being detained in the Franklin
County Jail awaiting trial on burglary charges. Shortly after filing this Petition, his
case was called to trial and Petitioner was convicted. As a result, Petitioner is
presently housed at the Sheridan Correctional Center, serving a five year sentence
on his burglary conviction. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
BACKGROUND
The Franklin County Court docket indicates that Petitioner was charged
with burglary in February 2017 and entered a plea of not guilty. On April 7, 2017,

Petitioner filed the instant § 2254 Petition alleging due process violations in
connection with his then pending criminal trial. In connection with these claims,
Petitioner seeks immediate or “speedier” release.

The Petition indicates that

Petitioner has not sought state court relief on any level. On April 27, 2017,
Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment.
Petitioner is presently in IDOC custody and is housed at Sheridan Correctional
Center.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A petitioner who has been tried and convicted, and who therefore is “in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” must challenge his conviction
or sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500,
93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). A pretrial detainee being held at the
county jail, however, is not “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.”
Pretrial detainees must therefore pursue habeas relief under § 2241. See Braden

v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 488 (1973); Jacobs v.
McCaughtry, 251 F.3d 596, 597–98 (7th Cir. 2001). At the time he filed this
Petition, Petitioner was in pretrial custody, and had not yet been convicted of any
charge. Shortly after the Petition was filed, he was convicted. He is now in custody
pursuant to that judgment of conviction.
28 U.S.C. § 2254 requires petitioners to exhaust state court remedies prior
to seeking federal habeas corpus relief. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 124
S.Ct. 1347, 158 L.Ed.2d 64 (2004) (§ 2254 requires exhaustion of state court

remedies). Although pretrial detainees in state court pursuing relief under § 2241
are not subject to the statutory requirement of exhaustion of remedies, “federal
courts nevertheless may require, as a matter of comity, that such detainees
exhaust all avenues of state relief before seeking the writ.” United States v. Castor,
937 F.2d 293, 296–97 (7th Cir. 1991).
The exhaustion requirement promotes comity by affording the state courts
the first opportunity to address and correct violations of their prisoners' federal
constitutional rights. O' Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844-45 (1999);
Perruquet v. Briley, 390 F.3d 505. 513-14 (7th Cir. 2004). For that opportunity to
be meaningful, the petitioner must “fairly present” his federal constitutional
claims in one complete round of state review. Boerckel, 526 U.S. at 845. 848. To
do so, the petitioner must “present both the operative facts and the legal
principles that control each claim” at each level of state review. Stevens v.

McBride, 489 F.3d 883. 894 (7th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). This includes
presenting the claim in a petition for discretionary review with the Illinois
Supreme Court. Boerckel, 526 U.S. at 845-47.
In this case, Petitioner has already been convicted. The relief Petitioner
seeks (release from prison) would require overturning that conviction. Therefore,
Petitioner’s due process challenges are an attack on his state court judgment.
Consequently, he must give the State of Illinois an opportunity to address his
claim before bringing it to federal court. It is clear from the Petition that none of
the potential grounds for habeas relief has yet been presented to the Illinois state

courts for resolution. This Court cannot review the merits of this claim, under §
2241 or § 2254 unless and until Petitioner exhausts his state court remedies.
Accordingly, the Petition shall be dismissed without prejudice to the claims
being refiled, if necessary, after Petitioner has fully exhausted his claims in the
state courts.
DISPOSITION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.
1) is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Should Petitioner desire to appeal this Court's ruling, he must first secure a
certificate of appealability, either from this Court or from the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); see also 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
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. See FED.
R. APP. P. 22(b)(1)-(3).
For the reasons detailed above, the Court has determined that Petitioner is
not entitled to relief at this time because he has yet to exhaust his state court
remedies. 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 enter judgment accordingly and close this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 17th day of July, 2017.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2017.07.17
12:39:55 -05'00'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE