Johnson v. Vincenz

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. Signed by District Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk on 09/19/2022. (ANP)

Case: 4:21-cv-01373-SEP Doc. #: 5 Filed: 09/19/22 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 77

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN WALTER JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
FELIX VINCENZ,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:21-CV-1373-SEP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner John Walter Johnson’s Petition for a Writ Of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
The background of this case is fully set forth in the Court’s August 16, 2022,
Memorandum and Order, but the Court recites the essential facts here. Petitioner identified two
grounds for relief under § 2241 and sought an order from this Court directing that his case be
adjudicated by a different state court judge. By his own admission, Petitioner failed to fully
exhaust available state remedies before filing the instant petition. In its August 16, 2022,
Memorandum and Order, the Court directed Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not
be dismissed due to his failure to fully exhaust state remedies. See Doc. [4]. In that order, the
Court cautioned Petitioner that his failure to timely comply could result in the dismissal of this
case without further notice. Id. at 2. Petitioner’s response was due on September 6, 2022, but to
date, he has neither responded to the Court’s order nor sought additional time to do so.
DISCUSSION
Before initiating an action in federal court, a petitioner seeking relief from state custody
must exhaust “all available state remedies.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky,
410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973). The exhaustion requirement “serves to minimize friction between our
federal and state systems of justice by allowing the State an initial opportunity to pass upon and
correct alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights.” Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3
(1981) (per curiam).

Case: 4:21-cv-01373-SEP Doc. #: 5 Filed: 09/19/22 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 78

Here, Petitioner’s state criminal charges remain pending, and he admittedly failed to
exhaust “all available state remedies” before filing the instant Petition. Braden, 410 U.S. at 489.
The Court concludes that the Petition is subject to dismissal due to Petitioner’s failure to fully
exhaust state remedies, and Petitioner has failed to show cause why the Petition should not be
dismissed for that reason. The Court therefore summarily dismisses the Petition at this time
under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which
requires this Court to summarily dismiss a § 2254 petition “[i]f it plainly appears . . . that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief[.]” 1
Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right, he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–85 (2000).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. A
separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.
Dated this 19th day of September, 2022.

SARAH E. PITLYK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Rule 4 applies to habeas petitions arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule l(b) of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases (stating that the “district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition
not covered by Rule l(a)”).

2