David v. Mesmer
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's pro se Motion to Suspend Filing of Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus Motion Until 90 Days After State Writ of Habeas Corpus Mandate Issues 7 is DENIED without prejudice.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 7/2/15. (LGK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SHEILA KAY DAVID,
Case No. 4:14-CV-1640 JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Suspend Filing of Federal
Writ of Habeas Corpus Motion Until 90 Days After State Writ of Habeas Corpus Mandate
Issues. (Doc. No. 7)
Petitioner, an inmate at the Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correction
Center, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1) On April 20,
2012, Petitioner pleaded guilty to stealing over $20,000, a class B felony, and was sentenced to a
term of twenty years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. On June 25, 2012, she filed a
pro se motion to vacate, set aside or correct judgment. Counsel was appointed to represent
Petitioner and an amended motion was filed on March 5, 2013. Following an evidentiary hearing
on May 13, 2013, the amended motion was denied. Petitioner appealed from the motion court’s
judgment denying her amended motion, which judgment was affirmed. See David v. State of
Missouri, 433 S.W.3d 492 (Mo.Ct.App. 2014).
In her motion, Petitioner states she did not exhaust all remedies at the State level before
filing her petition under § 2254; however, upon review, there are no matters pending at the state
level. If this is incorrect, Petitioner may submit further information for the Court’s consideration.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Suspend Filing of
Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus Motion Until 90 Days After State Writ of Habeas Corpus
Mandate Issues  is DENIED without prejudice.
Dated this 2nd day of July, 2015.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?