Diehl v. Maryland Parole Commission et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 1/19/2016. (c/m 1/19/2016 aos, Deputy Clerk)

FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COUIUSTRICT
OF HARYLAI/O
FOR THE DISTRICT
OF MARYLAND
Southern

lOlb JAN I q P 3: 2 I

Division

*
RONALD

C. DIEHL,

CLERK'S OFFICE
AT Gi(EEHBt:L1

.JR., #322-225

*

8 y__ ..__

C" f' l;T Y

Petitioner,

*
v.

Case No.: G.JII-I5-2830

*
MARYLAND
PAROLE
COMMISSION,
et al.,

*
*

Respondents.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM
Ronald C. Diehl. Jr.. a state prisoner.

*

*

without having a parole revocation

*

*

*

OI'INION

tiled this pro se Petition for Writ of ttabeas

to 28 U.S.c. ~ 2241 (2012). alleging he has been detained

pursuant

*

Corpus

for more than 60 days

hearing. ECl' No. I at 10. Respondents

move to dismiss the

Petition on the basis that Diehl has failed to exhaust his claims in state court. See ECl' NO.4.
I.

BACKGROUND
Diehl has a lengthy criminal

history that includes multiple convictions

on assault and

burglary charges. See ECl' No. 4-3. The parties agree that at the time he was sen'ed with a parole
revocation

warrant,

Diehl was charged in a separate criminal case for second-degree

the District Court for Baltimore
II.

assault in

County. See lOCI' NO.4-I.

DISCUSSION
Diehl claims he is entitled to rclease Irom detention

regulation

requiring

a revocation

regulation

provides that:

and bases his claim on a Maryland

hearing within 60 days. See lOCI' No. I at to. The relc,'ant

A parole revocation hearing shall be held within 60 days alier apprehension of the
parolee on the parole violation warrant. cxccpt that .lidlllrc to hold thc hcaring
wilhin the 60-day period /110)'not be in coll/ravell/ion (II' this paragraph ir the
parolc violation 1l'<II"'<IIlt is not the solc doclI/11ell/ lindeI' \I'hich the jJarolee is
detained or incarcerated. This paragraph may not serve to invalidate the action of
the Parole Commission in revoking the parole of an individual iC under all the
circumstances. the revocation hearing is hcld within a reasonable time alier the
parolee was apprehended and detained for violation of parole under the parole
violation warrant.
Md. Code Reg. 12,08.01.22(F)(2)(a) (2016) (emphasis added).
Diehl asserts he is being held solely because he has been "charged with a new criminal
case." and implies that but for the retake warrant issued by the Maryland Parole Commission. he
would be entitled to release pending disposition of the assault charges in the District Court of
Maryland for Baltimore County, ECF No. I at 9-10, It appears that the parole retake warrant is
not the sole document under which Diehl is currently detained. making the 60 day hearing
requirement inapplicable.
Notwithstanding this analysis, his claim is a matter of state law and must first be
presented to the state coul1

1'01'

review befiJre federal habeas rei ief may be granted. See Francis ",

Henderson. 425 U.S. 536. 538. 96 S. Ct. 1708 (1976). ("This Court has lon~ reco~nized that in
~
~
some circumstances considerations of comity and concerns t()[ the orderly administration of
criminal justice require a federal co1ll1to f()rgo the exercise of its habeas corpus power. "): see
also Tim/11sv, Johns. 627 F. 3d 525. 531 (4th Cir. 2010) (applying exhaustion requirements to

*

2241 petitions challenging civil commitment).
Thus. betare tiling a federal habeas petition. petitioner must exhaust his claim by way of
a habeas corpus petition tiled in the state court. Sec Rose \', LUI/(~I'. 55 U. S, 509. 521. 102 S, Ct.
4
1198 (1982). The claim must be Itlirly presented to the state courts: this means presenting both
the operative facts and con troll ing legal principles. See Baker \', Corcoran. 220 F.3d 276. 289

(4th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Exhaustion includes state court appellate review. See
Granberry v. Greer. 481 U.S. 129. 134-35. 107 S. Ct. 1671 (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. 492. 497-98. 497 n.l3. 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973).
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. Petitioner's request for habeas corpus reliefis DENIED

without prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue and the Clerk shall be directed to
close this case. A separate Order follows.

~-

Dated: Januarv J ~ .2016

GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

3