Walden v. State of Maryland

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 1/31/2017. (c/m 1/31/2017)(ko, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JOHN S. WALDEN, #435373
Petitioner,
v.

*

WARDEN KATHLEEN GREEN
Respondent.

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. GLR-17-53

*****
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 6, 2017, this Court received a two-page 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus from John S. Walden, an inmate confined at the Patuxent Institution in Jessup,
Maryland. Walden claims that he is being held illegally because his release date is not accurately
reflected in his commitment records. He contends that his correct release date is reflected in his base
file, which is held at another correctional institution. (ECF No. 1).
A habeas corpus petition, with its concomitant requirement of the exhaustion of state court
remedies, is the exclusive means for a person "in custody" to attack the fact or duration of his
confinement. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489–90, 500 (1973) (holding that state
prisoner's civil rights action for injunctive relief seeking restoration of good time credits should
proceed as habeas corpus matter). Walden does not contend that a state remedy is unavailable for
his claims, and a review of the cause of action as well as the state court docket reveals that he has not
fully exhausted his remedies on this issue.
Assuming that Walden has presented claims that implicate constitutional issues, his § 2241
claims may not proceed due to his failure to demonstrate exhaustion of state court remedies for each
ground he raised. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 490–91
1

(1973). An inmate claiming an entitlement to an immediate release may seek relief directly from the
state courts by:
1.

Filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a Circuit Court;

2.

Appealing a decision by the Circuit Court to the Court of
Special Appeals; and

3.

Seeking certiorari to the Court of Appeals from a decision by
the Court of Special Appeals.

See Md. Rule 15-301, et seq,; Md. Rule 8-201, et seq.; and Md. Rule 8-301, et seq.
Because Walden has not exhausted his remedies, his case will be dismissed without
prejudice.1 A separate Order follows.2

Date:_January 31, 2017____

/s/
George L. Russell, III
United States District Judge

1

The Court observes that the Petition is captioned to be filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County. (ECF No. 1 at 1). The envelope, however, is addressed to the Clerk of this
Court. According to the state court docket, on October 6, 2015, Walden was convicted and
sentenced to a three-year term on one count of burglary-4th degree theft in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland. See State v. Walden, Case Number 03K15002917 (Cir. Ct. Balt.
Cty.). If Walden intended to file his Petition in state court, he should refile his action in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County, County Courts Building, 401 Bosley Avenue, Towson, Maryland
21204-0754.
2

As of the signature date, the docket does not show that Walden filed the $5.00 habeas fee or
an indigency application. In light of the summary dismissal of the matter, however, Walden shall not
be ordered to correct this omission.
2