Raimo v. Johnson County, Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 03/13/18. Mailed to pro se party Mark Raimo by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CASE NO. 18-3050-SAC
JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Petitioner proceeds pro se and paid the filing fee.
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, the Court must promptly review habeas
corpus petitions and must summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief….”
Petitioner states that he was convicted on a guilty plea in Case
No 16CR49 and sentenced in January 2018 to a term of 72 months. It
does not appear that he filed a direct appeal or that he has sought
post-conviction relief. Petitioner states that he is “still in
District Court contesting a subsequent case.” (Doc. #1, p. 5.)
Generally, before a state prisoner may seek review of a
conviction in federal court, he must exhaust the remedies available
in the Kansas state courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
The exhaustion doctrine generally requires a state prisoner to
exhaust available state court remedies before filing a federal habeas
corpus action. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). To
satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner “must give the state
courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by
invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate
review process.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).
Because petitioner has not yet presented his claims in the state
appellate courts, this matter must be dismissed without prejudice.
See Allen v. Zavaras, 568 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 2009)(dismissal
of habeas corpus action is proper where the failure to exhaust is clear
from the face of the petition).
Certificate of Appealability
Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases, the district
court must either issue or deny a certificate of appealability (COA)
when it enters an order that is adverse to the petitioner. When the
district court rejects a petition on procedural grounds, a COA should
issue if the petitioner shows that “jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of
a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
The Court declines to issue a COA in this matter. Petitioner has
not yet presented his claims to the state appellate courts, and his
failure to exhaust is plain from the face of the petition.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is dismissed
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 13th day of March, 2018, at Topeka, Kansas.
S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
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?