Gray v. Fisher et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 3/31/2017. (c/m 3/31/17)(kr2, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SHAUNE A. GRAY,

*

Petitioner

*

v

*

SUSANNE FISHER, et aI.,

*

Civil Action No. JFM-15-1916

*
***

Respondents

MEMORANDUM
Respondents have filed an answer to the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas
corpus seeking dismissal of this matter as unexhausted.

ECF 5. Petitioner has not replied.

For

the reasons that follow, the petition shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Petitioner Shaune A. Gray ("Gray") alleged he was being held in the custody of the
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) unlawfully because
he had not been provided a parole revocation hearing in a timely manner. ECF 1.
The claims presented by Gray 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. 92241. 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, 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,
(citations omitted).

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). 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).
Gray has not exhausted state judicial review regarding the untimely revocation hearing.
Gray has not filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in state court challenging the lack of a
revocation hearing. ECF 5-1,
As it is clear that Gray did not exhaust his claim regarding the delay in a parole
revocation hearing with the Maryland state courts, the instant 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 "(I) '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.''' Rouse v, Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001)
(quoting Slack v, Daniel, 529 U,S. 473, 484 (2000».

Gray has not demonstrated a basis for the

issuance of a certificate of appealability.
A separate order follows.

(Vj""-f,
Date

J;

jd&-1)~

-..v17

J. 1rederick Mci z
United States District Judge

3110Wlll'i8 J

331':.:10 S.).Ib'J1J

as : /l1oi~

1£ HVIHlOZ

T. :,l;,~v',' JO 1:/111SIrJ
IdlUJ l:J1111SIQ'HI

03lU

.,

2