Carter v. Haynes
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.An Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 3/9/18. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 4:17-CV-2698 NCC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The petition will be summarily dismissed without prejudice because petitioner
has not exhausted his available state remedies before bringing the petition in this Court.
Petitioner is currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Forrest City Low, in
Forrest City Arkansas serving a federal sentence of 130 months imprisonment on drug and gun
charges. Petitioner's federal sentence was entered by this Court on December 5, 2014. See
United States v. Carter, No. 4:13-CR-334 JAR (E.D. Mo. filed Dec. 5, 2014). He has filed two
motions to vacate this sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255: Carter v. United States, No. 4:16-CV-25
JAR (E.D. Mo. filed Jan. 7, 2016) (currently pending); and Carter v. United States, No.
4:15-CV-389 JAR (E.D. Mo. filed Feb. 26, 2015) (dismissed without prejudice as premature
pending direct appeal).
Prior to his federal charges, in 1993, petitioner pied guilty in state court to felony murder
and armed criminal action. The Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis sentenced petitioner to life
imprisonment on October 21, 1993. Petitioner was released on parole on March 12, 2010.
Based on a review of petitioner's presentence investigation report prepared in United States v.
Carter, No. 4:13-CV-334 JAR (Doc. 131), plaintiffs parole in his state court criminal case is
In the instant petition, petitioner challenges any revocation of his parole in state court.
Based on the Court's research, however, it is unclear whether petitioner's parole in state court has
been revoked. Assuming the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole revoked petitioner's parole
based on his federal convictions, however, plaintiff has filed this petition without first challenging
the Board's decision in the Missouri courts.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides
that a district court shall summarily dismiss a § 2254 petition if it plainly appears that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief.
Plaintiff is currently serving a 130 month sentence on federal drug and gun charges. See
United States v. Carter, No. 4:13-CR-334 JAR.· Although petitioner's instant 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition is difficult to decipher, it appears petitioner is challenging any decision to revoke his
parole in state court based on his federal convictions.
In the absence of exceptional circumstances, a state prisoner must exhaust currently
available and adequate state remedies before invoking federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. Braden
v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973). Missouri law provides at least three
distinct avenues for challenging a parole decision: by bringing a declaratory action against the
Board, by filing a state petition for habeas corpus, or by filing a petition for writ of mandamus.
Wayne v. Mo. Bd of Prob. and Parole, 83 F .3d 994, 996-97 (8th Cir. 1996).
A review of Missouri's state law docketing system on Missouri Case.net indicates that
petitioner's Missouri state parole has not been revoked. Furthermore, even if petitioner's parole
had been revoked, he has not challenged his parole decision in state court. Assuming Missouri's
Board of Probation and Parole has revoked petitioner's parole based on his federal convictions,
petitioner has not exhausted his available state remedies. Because petitioner has not exhausted
his available state remedies, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
An Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
.!J2day of March, 2018.
ED 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?