Toomer v. State of Maryland et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 7/26/11. (apl, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 7/27/11)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DERRICK TOOMER,
Petitioner
*
*
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. DKC-11-1913
*
STATE OF MARYLAND, et al.,
Respondents
*
*******
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner Derrick Toomer, a pretrial detainee confined at the Western Correctional Institution
in Cumberland, Maryland, filed the instant “Writ of Habeas Corpus Emergency Request” which was
construed a Petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. Petitioner has filed a Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) which shall be granted.
Petitioner maintains that since the conclusion of his first trial, evidence material to his case
has been lost by the State. He also alleges that witnesses were improperly assisted in identifying him.
ECF No. 1. If construed as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C §2254,
the Petition is premature. Under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982), before a petitioner may
file a petition seeking habeas relief in federal court, he must exhaust each claim presented to the
federal court through remedies available in state court. This exhaustion requirement is satisfied by
seeking review of the claim in the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider the claim. See 28
U.S.C. ' 2254(b) and (c). This may be accomplished by proceeding either on direct appeal and/or in
a post-conviction petition.
Given that Petitioner has not yet been retried, Petitioner has not yet exhausted all of his
available state court remedies. Since Petitioner=s claims have not yet been exhausted in the state
courts, this Petition for habeas corpus relief shall be dismissed without prejudice in order to allow
Petitioner to continue to pursue his state court remedies. Both comity and judicial efficiency make it
appropriate for this court to insist on complete exhaustion before it addresses the issues raised by the
Petitioner. See Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 135 (1987).
To the extent Petitioner seeks this court’s immediate intervention in his state court criminal
proceedings, the court declines to act. Federal courts do not interfere in ongoing state criminal
proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances not
shown here. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971); Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F. 3d 881, 903 (4th
Cir. 1996); Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc., v. Gilchrist, 887 F.2d 49, 50-53 (4th Cir. 1989) (district
courts should abstain from constitutional challenges to state judicial proceedings if the federal claims
have been or could have been presented in an ongoing state judicial proceeding). This rule requires
abstention when: i) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; ii) the state proceedings
involve important state interests; and iii) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise
the constitutional issue. See Middlesex County Ethics Commission v. Garden State Bar Association,
457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Federal injunctive relief may not be used to test the validity of an arrest or
the admissibility of evidence in a state proceeding. See Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 83085
(1971).
Under the amendments to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Proceedings under
Section 2254 “the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final
order adverse to the applicant…If the court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific issue
or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).” In Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473 (2000), the Supreme Court held that “[w]hen the district court denies a habeas petition on
procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA
[certificate of appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that ... jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack, 529
U.S. at 484. Petitioner does not satisfy this standard, and the court declines to issue a certificate of
2
appealability as required under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Petitions in the United States
District Courts.
A separate Order follows.
Date:
July 26, 2011
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
3
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?