Madison v. Maryland Parole Commission et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake on 4/28/2015. (c/m 4/29/15 bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JASON MADISON,
Petitioner

*
*

v

Civil Action No. CCB-14-2733
*

MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION, et al.
Respondents
*
***
MEMORANDUM
Jason Madison filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The
respondents filed an answer seeking dismissal of this matter as unexhausted. (ECF No. 4.)
Madison has not replied. For the reasons that follow, the petition will be dismissed without
prejudice.
Madison alleges he was unlawfully held in the custody of the Maryland Department of
Public Safety and Correctional Services because he was not provided a timely parole revocation
hearing. (ECF No. 1.) He states he was arrested on a retake warrant due to charges arising in the
District Court for Harford County, Maryland. Id. As relief, Madison seeks a parole revocation
hearing, release from confinement, and/or the quashing of the warrant. Id.
Madison’s claims involve questions of state law, making the petition subject to the
exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The exhaustion requirement applies to petitions
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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). Thus, before filing a
federal habeas petition, the petitioner must exhaust each claim presented by pursuing remedies

available in state court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521 (1982). The claim must be fairly
presented to the state courts; this means presenting both the operative facts and controlling legal
principles. See Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 276, 289 (4th Cir. 2000). 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). State courts should be afforded the first
opportunity to review federal constitutional challenges to state convictions in order to preserve
the role of state courts in protecting federally guaranteed rights. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 497 n.13 (1973).
The respondents assert that Madison has not exhausted state judicial review regarding the
allegedly untimely revocation hearing, as he has filed no petitions in state court complaining as
much. (ECF No. 4, Ex. 1.) As it is clear that Madison did not exhaust his claim regarding the
alleged delay in a parole revocation hearing with the Maryland state courts, his petition must be
dismissed without prejudice.
When a district court dismisses a habeas petition solely on procedural grounds, a
certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of
a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001)
(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Madison has not demonstrated a basis
for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. A separate order follows.

April 28, 2015
Date

/S/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge

2