Williamson vs State of Kansas

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dismissing this matter without prejudice to allow petitioner to exhaust his claims in the state courts. Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Sam A. Crow on 2/2/2012. Mailed to pro se party Komas A. Williamson by regular mail. (Attachments: # 1 Kansas Appellate Case) (ms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

KOMAS A. WILLIAMSON,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 12-3011-SAC

STATE OF KANSAS,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner proceeds pro se and submitted the
filing fee.
Petitioner was convicted in the District Court of Sedgwick
County pursuant to a guilty plea. In this action, he seeks the
following relief: a reduction in sentence, an order directing that
a different state court judge manage his case, sentence credit for
time served, and an order directing that the remainder of his
sentence be served in the custody of the Kansas Department of
Corrections, on work release, or on parole. He also seeks an
investigation.
A petitioner seeking federal habeas corpus review generally
must

satisfy

the

exhaustion

requirement.

Under

28

U.S.C.

§2254(b)(1), a petitioner must show the claims presented in the
habeas corpus action (1) have been presented to the state courts,

including the highest state court, or (2) that no adequate state
court

remedies

are

available

or

effective.

See

O'Sullivan

v.

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999); Dever v. Kansas State Penitentiary,
36 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir.1994).
Because the materials appended to the petition show that a
direct appeal is pending in the Kansas appellate courts1, the court
will dismiss this matter without prejudice. Petitioner has not
presented his claims to the highest state court; rather, he has a
pending appeal in his criminal case, and the state district court
has not yet ruled on his challenge to his sentence due to the
appeal.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is dismissed
without prejudice to allow petitioner to exhaust his claims in the
state courts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as moot.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 2d day of February, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

1

One attachment shows that the state district court denied
petitioner’s motion to modify sentence for lack of
jurisdiction, citing the pending appeal. The court’s
research reflects that the appeal remains pending; a copy of
the appellate docket sheet is appended to this order.
2