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)

Download PDF
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

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?