Corley v. Epps et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 11 Judgment. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 10/10/12. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
RANDY SCOTT CORLEY
PETITIONER
vs.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 4:12CV88-SA-SAA
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, et al.
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se motion to dismiss his pending petition
for writ of habeas corpus, or, alternatively, to stay his federal proceedings pending the
exhaustion of his State court remedies.
Petitioner initially filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging a wrongful parole revocation and seeking
damages. That court severed his habeas claims from the lawsuit and opened a new case under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Thereafter, the court transferred Petitioner’s federal habeas case to this district.
In the instant motion, Petitioner alleges that he did not know that the court would construe his
complaints as a habeas action, and he maintains that the issues in his complaint are currently
before the State court in Corley v. State, No. 2012-75-5-COA. Conceding that he has failed to
exhaust his State court remedies as required to maintain a federal habeas action, he requests that
the Court either stay or dismiss without prejudice the instant action.
A stay in a habeas case containing unexhausted claims is appropriate only where (1) there
is good cause for the failure to exhaust the claims first in state court; (2) the claims are not
patently meritless; and (3) there is no indication of intentionally dilatory litigation tactics by the
petitioner. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). Petitioner has not argued that good
1
cause exists to stay this action, nor does the Court find any to exist. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. That Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the petition in this cause is GRANTED.
2. That the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE due to Petitioner’s failure to first exhaust his State court remedies; and
3. That all other pending motions in this cause are DISMISSED;
A final judgment consistent with this order will enter today.
THIS, the 10th day of October, 2012.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?