Laicer v. Wichita Kansas, District Court et al

Filing 3

ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days in which to satisfy the filing fee prerequisite by either paying the fee of $5.00 or submitting a motion for leave to proceed in forma puaperis on court-provided forms and to cure the other deficiencies set forth herein or this action may be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 10/29/2013. (Mailed to pro se party Ravi S. Laicer by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RAVI S. LAICER,
Petitioner,
v.
DISTRICT COURT
WICHITA KANSAS,
et al.,

CASE NO.

13-3185-SAC

Respondents.
O R D E R

Petitioner has submitted an initial pleading in this action
entitled “Pro Se Motion to Complain Violation of Civil Liberties and
Civil Rights.”

Based upon the content, the court liberally

construes this pleading as a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Mr. Laicer is currently detained at the Rice County Jail, Lyons,
Kansas.

It appears from his allegations, that in 2012 he was

convicted upon his plea in Sedgwick County District Court, Wichita,
Kansas, of aggravated battery, which he describes as a severity level
5 crime of violence and a person felony.

It further appears that

he seeks to challenge this conviction on several grounds including
ineffective assistance of counsel, the State and court failed to
establish a factual basis for his plea, he was incompetent at the
time of his plea and was convicted “with mental illness issues” while
in need of treatment, he was not allowed to appear at a hearing on
his state motion to withdraw plea, and the “judicial system of State
1

of Kansas” is “discriminatory and corrupt.”

He contends that he

should be allowed to withdraw his plea.
It plainly appears that petitioner’s main aim is to overturn
his plea and his felony conviction in his state criminal case No.
11CR1709.
ways.

However, this federal pleading is deficient in several

Petitioner is given time to cure the defects in his petition

that are discussed herein.

If he fails to cure all defects within

the prescribed time this action may be dismissed without further
notice.

FILING FEE NOT PAID
The statutory fee for filing a federal habeas corpus petition
is $5.00.1

Petitioner has neither paid the fee nor submitted a motion

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

This action may not proceed

until the filing fee is satisfied in one of these two ways.
Petitioner is ordered to either pay the filing fee or file a proper
motion to proceed in forma pauperis upon forms provided by the court
that is supported by the requisite financial information.

A

prisoner seeking to bring a federal habeas corpus action without
payment of fees must submit an affidavit that includes a statement
of the prisoner’s assets.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

The prisoner

must also submit a certified accounting of the funds available to
1
If Mr. Laicer is actually trying to sue the named “respondents” in a civil
complaint, the statutory fee is $350.00 plus a $50.00 administrative fee for total
fees due upon filing of $400.00. For a plaintiff that is granted leave to proceed
without prepayment of fees, the fee is $350.00.

2

him in his institutional account.

D.Kan.Rule 9.1(g); 2 see Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts,
Rule 3(a)(2)(habeas petition must be accompanied by “a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the affidavit required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915, and a certificate from the warden or other appropriate
officer of the place of confinement showing the amount of money or
securities

that

institution”).
petitioner.

the
The

petitioner
clerk

is

has

in

directed

any
to

account

send

IFP

in

the

forms

to

If Mr. Laicer does not satisfy the filing fee within

the prescribed time, this action may be dismissed without prejudice
and without further notice.

CLAIMS ARE HABEAS IN NATURE
Mr. Laicer makes no effort to set forth a jurisdictional basis
in his pleading.

The claim by an inmate that he is entitled to have

a state conviction overturned is in the nature of a habeas corpus
claim that must be presented in federal court by petition for writ
of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The only proper

respondent in a habeas corpus action is the inmate’s current
custodian.
2

Petitioner’s former and current attorneys and the

D.Kan.Rule 9.1(g)(2)(A) provides:
Where a petitioner, movant, or plaintiff is an inmate of a penal
institution and desires to proceed without prepayment of fees, he or
she must also submit a certificate executed by an authorized officer
of the institution in which he or she is confined. The certificate
must state the amount of money or securities on deposit to his or her
credit in any account in the institution.

3

“District Court Wichita Kansas” are not proper respondents.
Local court rule requires that a habeas corpus petition filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be submitted upon court-approved forms.
Mr. Laicer will be provided forms and is required to submit his claims
upon those forms.
petition.

He must name a proper respondent in his form

If he fails to comply within the prescribed time, this

action may be dismissed without further notice.

THIS ACTION IS PREMATURE
It is well-settled law that a state inmate must exhaust all
remedies available in the state courts before he may seek review of
his

state

conviction

in

federal

court.

See

28

U.S.C.

§

2254(b)(1)(A);3 O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999)(“A
state prisoner must give the state courts an opportunity to act on
his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a
habeas petition.”).

Generally, the exhaustion prerequisite is not

satisfied unless all claims asserted have been presented by “invoking
one complete round of the State’s established appellate review
process.”

Id. at 845.

This means that the claims must have been

“properly presented” as federal constitutional issues “to the

3

Section 2254(b)(1)(A) pertinently provides:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted
unless it appears that -- (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies
available in the courts of the State. . . .

4

highest state court, either by direct review of the conviction or
in a post-conviction attack.”

Dever v. Kansas State Penitentiary,

36 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1994).
It is clear from petitioner’s own allegations and exhibits that
he has not fully exhausted state court remedies on his claims.
First, state appellate court records available on-line for State of
Kansas v. Laicer, Appellate Case No. 109495, show that Mr. Laicer
filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of his direct appeal that was
granted on June 18, 2013.

It thus appears that he did not fully

exhaust any of his claims by way of direct appeal.
Petitioner

alleges

that he filed a motion in the state

sentencing court to withdraw his plea on August 14, 2013, that was
scheduled for hearing on October 4, 2013.

Once this motion has been

heard and if it is denied, Mr. Laicer’s recourse is to appeal to the
Kansas Court of Appeals and ultimately to the highest state court,
which is the Kansas Supreme Court.4 As noted, he must utilize the
state appellate process in order to fully exhaust state court
remedies.

The same is true for any state post-conviction motion

filed pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1507 that may currently be pending in
the sentencing court.5
4
If petitioner’s motion to withdraw was denied as untimely and he believes
this was in error, he must present this and all his claims to the state appellate
courts.
5
This federal district court is not the court of appeals for decisions of
the Sedgwick County District Court or any other district court within the state
system. Nor does this court have authority to issue a “mandate” to the Sedgwick
County District Court to not dismiss petitioner’s motion to withdraw plea, as he

5

In his § 2254 form petition, Mr. Laicer will be required to show
full exhaustion of state court remedies on each of his claims.

He

must follow the directions and carefully and fully complete all
questions in his form petition.

If he does not show full and proper

exhaustion, this action will be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to exhaust.

IMMIGRATION STATUS
Finally, the court notes that Mr. Laicer alleges that he is an
“ICE detainee,” and that ICE detained him on June 18, 2013.

One of

his many exhibits is a “Notice to Appear” from the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security that is dated June 19, 2013.

This Notice

indicates that he is a native and citizen of Tanzania; his status
is that of Lawful Permanent Resident; he was convicted of aggravated
battery in Sedgwick County District Court on May 1, 2012, and
sentenced to 31 months in prison; and that due to this conviction
he is subject to removal from the United States.

He has been ordered

to appear before an immigration judge on a date and at a time “to
be set.”

Petitioner claims that the attorney appointed to represent

him in state criminal proceedings failed to properly advise him as
to the effects of his guilty plea upon his immigration status.

The

court reiterates that petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel must be presented in the state courts in the first
requests.

6

instance.

Any challenge that Mr. Laicer may have to his removal must

be presented in the first instance at his removal hearing and on
appeal to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner is granted thirty (30)
days in which to satisfy the filing fee prerequisite by either paying
the fee of $5.00 or submitting a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on court-provided forms and to cure the other deficiencies
set forth herein or this action may be dismissed without prejudice
and without further notice.
The clerk is directed to send petitioner IFP and § 2254 forms.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 29th day of October, 2013, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/Sam A. Crow
U.S. Senior District Judge

7