Shannon v. Epps et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 9 FINAL JUDGMENT on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 8/29/13. (jlm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
JAMES M. SHANNON (# R4963)
v.
PETITIONER
No. 1:13CV35-A-S
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL.
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of James M. Shannon for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State has moved to dismiss the petition, and
Shannon has responded. The matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the
State’s motion to dismiss will be granted and the petition dismissed for failure to exhaust state
remedies.
Facts and Procedural Posture
The Petitioner, James M. Shannon, is lawfully in the custody of Earnest Lee,
Superintendent of the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi. Shannon pleaded
guilty to one (1) count of aggravated assault in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Mississippi. On
November 17, 2011, he was sentenced to serve twenty (20) years in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”), with twelve (12) years suspended and five
(5) years post-release supervision. Exhibit A. According to the records of the Mississippi
Supreme Court Clerk’s office and the Lee County Circuit Clerk, Shannon has filed no direct
appeal or motion for post-conviction relief at this time. In the instant petition, Shannon does not
appear to challenge his conviction or sentence; he argues that there is a miscalculation on his
prison time sheet relating to Meritorious Earned Time (“MET”).
In his current habeas petition, filed on January 20, 2013, Shannon raises the following
issue pro se:
Ground One. I filed an Administrative Remedy. On Jan 17 I was sent to
(WCCRCF) Winston Choctaw Regional Correctional Facility. I was placed in
Trustee Status 1-24-12. I started GED program in Feb 201[2], to my
understanding I would be receiving 10 days MET for GED and certain jobs I
obtain. I was given a job in the kitchen which I would receive 10 days MET
every month. On 4-6-12 for my duties performed in the kitchen and for attending
classes GED.
In his request for relief, Shannon asks the court to grant him 300 days of Meritorious
Earned Time and that he be released from MDOC custody and placed on probation. Shannon
previously filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 petition in the US District Court, Southern District, raising
the same claim. On January 8, 2013, that Court dismissed the cause of action sua sponte and
held that the claim was habeas in nature and could not be maintained in § 1983. Case No.
3:12-cv-814-TSL-MTP (S.D. Miss.) The Court noted that a review of the complaint showed that
the Shannon had not met the exhaustion requirement to seek habeas corpus relief. Further, the
Court held that Shannon could only pursue a habeas corpus petition after exhausting his
administrative remedies as set forth in MISS. CODE ANN. §§ 47-5-801 through 47-5-807. Id.
Exhaustion Requirement
The instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed for failure to exhaust
state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides in part:
(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it
appears that –
(A) the applicant has exhausted the state remedies available in the
courts of the State; or
(B) (i) there is an absence of available State corrective
process; or
-2-
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process
ineffective to protect the rights of the appellant.
...
(c) An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available
in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the
right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the
question presented.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) and (c).
“A fundamental prerequisite to federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the
exhaustion of all claims in state court under § 2254(b)(1) prior to requesting federal collateral
relief.” Sterling v. Scott, 57 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509
(1982)). A finding of exhaustion requires the petitioner to have “fairly presented the substance
of his claims to the state courts.” Sones v. Hargett, 61 F.3d 410, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing
Vela v. Estelle, 708 F.2d 954, 958 (5th Cir. 1983)). Further, exhaustion “requires that normally a
state prisoner’s entire federal habeas petition must be dismissed unless the prisoner’s state
remedies have been exhausted as to all claims raised in the federal petition.” Graham v.
Johnson, 94 F.3d 958, 968 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Rose, 455 U.S. at 518-19). The exhaustion
doctrine serves the salutary purpose of “giving the state courts the first opportunity to review the
federal constitutional issues and to correct any errors made by the trial courts, [and thus] ‘serves
to minimize friction between our federal and state systems of justice.’” Satterwhite v. Lynaugh,
886 F.2d 90, 92 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Rose, at 518) (citations omitted).
Shannon’s sole ground has not been exhausted in the state courts. He has not given the
state’s highest court, the Mississippi Supreme Court, an opportunity to review his claim. As
such, the instant federal habeas corpus petition will be dismissed for lack of exhaustion of the
claims presented in the sole ground of the instant petition. A final judgment consistent with this
-3-
memorandum opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this the 29th day of August, 2013.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
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?