Lewis v. Fisher et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 7/9/14. (c/m apls, Deputy Clerk)

_. FE_f~)

u.s. i)iSrn!~:f

CDUHT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR!I1STRICT Cf ',,\i;:'Ltl.HD
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

. 101~
JUL-'1 P II: 23'
WILLIS P. LEWIS

*

Petitioner

*
.J

v

*

WARDEN S. FISHER

,-

-

'_I~'Y
. "

':"

*

Respondent

Civil Action No. JKB-14-2041

*

***
MEMORANDUM
The above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed, together with a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, on June 24,2014.

Because he appears to be indigent, petitioner's

motion will be granted.
Petitioner alleges he is improperly detained in prison following the revocation of his
parole by the Maryland Parole Commission.

ECF I. He states that in November of 2006, he

was sentenced to serve seven years and was released on parole in 2008. Id. at p. 6. At the time
of his release the maximum expiration date of his seven year term was in November of2013.

In

20 II, petitioner violated his parole and the parole commissioner rescinded all of his street time
credit, which changed his maximum expiration date to September 5, 2015. Id. He concludes this
violates due process because "the only person under the law who can change your time is a
judge." ld.
Petitioner indicates he has not presented this claim to the state courts for consideration.
ECF I at pp. 3 - 5. Before this court may consider claims raised by state prisoners concerning
the legality of their confinement to prison, the claims must be presented to the state courts for
review. See Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536, 538 (1976) ("This Court has long recognized
that in some circumstances considerations of comity and concerns for the orderly administration

of criminal justice require a federal court to forgo the exercise of its habeas corpus power. "); see
also Timms v. Johns, 627 F. 3d 525, 531 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying exhaustion requirements to
2241 petition challenging civil commitment).
Both the operative facts and the controlling legal principles of this claim must be fairly
presented to the state courts. See Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F3d 276, 289 (4th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted).

Exhaustion includes appellate review in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and

the Maryland Court of Appeals.

See Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 134-35 (1987). The

state courts are to be afforded the first opportunity to review federal constitutional challenges to
state convictions

in order to preserve the role of the state courts in protecting federally

guaranteed rights. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).
Accordingly, the petition shall be dismissed without prejudice by separate order and a
certificate of appealability shall not issue 1.

.
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge

I When a district court dismisses a habeas petition soleiy on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability
will
not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both "( I) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constituiional right' and (2) 'that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.' ., Rouse v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th
Cir.2001) (quoting Slack v. Daniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000».

2