Grant-Adams v. Crawford County Sheriff
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner is granted to and including October 25, 2019, to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel 3 is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 10/08/19. Mailed to pro se party Bryan Grant-Adams by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CASE NO. 19-3190-SAC
CRAWFORD COUNTY SHERIFF,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Petitioner proceeds pro se, and his application to proceed
in forma pauperis is pending.
Petitioner was convicted in the District Court of Crawford
County, Kansas, of one count of failing to register as a sex offender.
It appears that his direct appeal is pending before the Kansas Court
Petitioner seeks relief on the ground that newly-discovered
evidence of his innocence is available. He states that he did not raise
this on direct appeal, and it does not appear that he has presented
it to the state courts.
Motion to appoint counsel
Petitioner also moves for the appointment of counsel. An applicant
for habeas corpus relief has no constitutional right to the
appointment of counsel. See Swazo v. Wyo. Dept. of Corr., 23 F.3d 332,
333 (10th Cir. 1994)(“[T]here is no constitutional right to counsel
Petitioner is proceeding before the Kansas Court of Appeals in App. Case No. 121833,
arising from 18CR282.
beyond the appeal of a criminal conviction, and … generally
appointment of counsel in a § 2254 proceeding is left to the court’s
discretion.”). Rather, the court may appoint counsel when “the
interests of justice so require” for a petitioner who is financially
eligible. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(1)(2)(b).
Because the Court has identified a deficiency in the petition,
the Court declines to appoint counsel in this matter.
A state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief must exhaust
available state court remedies before proceeding in federal court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) and Bland v. Sirmons, 459 F.3d 999, 1011
(10th Cir. 2006)(“A state prisoner generally must exhaust available
state-court remedies before a federal court can consider a habeas
corpus petition.”). This requirement “is designed to give the state
courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional
claims before those claims are presented to the federal courts.”
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).
In this case, petitioner has not exhausted the claims that are
before the Kansas Court of Appeals in his direct appeal, and he has
not presented the sole claim he asserts in this petition to a state
court. Because no exhausted claim is presented in this matter, the
Court will direct petitioner to show cause why this matter should not
be dismissed without prejudice to exhaust available state court
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED petitioner is granted to
and including October 25, 2019, to show cause why this matter should
not be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel
(Doc. 3) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 8th day of October, 2019, 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?