JONES v. NEW JERSEY PAROLE BOARD

Filing 30

OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 7/18/2011. (gxh)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
RONALD JONES,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY PAROLE BOARD,
et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 09-2510 (PGS)
OPINION

APPEARANCES:
Petitioner pro se
Ronald C. Jones
Northern State Prison
P.O. Box 2300
Newark, NJ 07114

Counsel for Respondents
Christopher C. Josephson
Ofc. of the NJ Atty. General
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street
P.O. Box 112
Trenton, NJ 08625-0112

SHERIDAN, Judge
Petitioner Ronald C. Jones, a prisoner currently confined at
Northern State Prison in Newark, New Jersey, has submitted a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254.

The respondents are the New Jersey Parole Board, Warden

Larry Glover, and the Attorney General of New Jersey.
For the reasons stated herein, the Petition must be
dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

I.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, of kidnapping,
aggravated sexual assault, and possession of a weapon for an
unlawful purpose.

On October 19, 1981, the trial court imposed

an aggregate term of 55 years of imprisonment, with 25 years of
parole ineligibility.

See Jones v. Morton, 195 F.3d 153, 155 (3d

Cir. 1999).1
On January 8, 1993, Petitioner filed his first § 2254 habeas
petition, challenging his conviction, in this Court.
v. Beyer, Civil No. 93-0164 (D.N.J.).

See Jones

On January 24, 1994,

United States District Judge John F. Gerry dismissed the petition
without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Petitioner’s second § 2254 habeas petition was also
dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.

See Jones v.

Morton, Civil No. 95-1296 (D.N.J.).
Petitioner’s third § 2254 habeas petition was dismissed in
1998 as a prohibited second or successive petition or, in the
alternative, as time-barred.

See Jones v. Morton, Civil No. 97-

1

This Court will take judicial notice of the dockets of
other cases related to this Petition. See Fed.R.Evid. 201;
Southern Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping
Group Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426-27 (3d Cir. 1999) (federal court,
on a motion to dismiss, may take judicial notice of another
court’s opinion, not for the truth of the facts recited therein,
but for the existence of the opinion, which is not subject to
reasonable dispute over its authenticity).
2

5606 (D.N.J.).

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

granted a certificate of appealability and affirmed on the ground
that the third petition was time-barred.

Jones v. Morton, 195

F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1999).
Petitioner’s fourth and fifth habeas petitions were both
dismissed in 2002 as time-barred.

Jones v. Hendricks, Civil No.

01-0337 (D.N.J.); Jones v. Hendricks, Civil No. 02-4612 (D.N.J.).
In 2003, Petitioner filed his sixth § 2254 petition.
v. Hendricks, Civil No. 03-3927 (D.N.J.).

Jones

On September 8, 2003,

United States District Judge Joseph E. Irenas found that the
petition was “second or successive” and transferred the case to
the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which thereafter
denied Petitioner leave to proceed with a second or successive
petition.
Petitioner filed his seventh § 2254 petition on March 30,
2004.

Jones v. Hendricks, Civil No. 04-1529 (D.N.J.).

On

January 19, 2003, United States District Judge Freda L. Wolfson
dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, on the ground
that it was a second or successive petition that Petitioner had
not obtained authorization to file.

On April 6, 2005, the Court

of Appeals denied Petitioner’s application for a certificate of
appealability as follows:
The foregoing application for a certificate of
appealability is denied. Jones sought to file a second
or successive petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
District Court. Because Jones had not obtained the
3

necessary authorization to do so from this Court, see
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2005), the District Court
lack jurisdiction to consider the petition, see
Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2002).
Jones has not shown that the District Court’s decision
to dismiss the petition arguably was incorrect. See
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).
Jones v. Hendricks, No. 05-1269 (3d Cir. April 6, 2005).
Petitioner filed his eighth § 2254 petition in 2006.
v. Hayman, Civil No. 06-5725 (D.N.J.).

Jones

On December 8, 2006,

United States District Judge Noel L. Hillman dismissed the
petition for lack of jurisdiction as a second or successive
petition.

The Court of Appeals granted a certificate of

appealability as to Petitioner’s ninth claim, relating to the
2006 denial of parole, vacated the District Court’s decision as
to that claim only, and remanded.
(3d Cir. Nov. 30, 2007).

Jones v. Hayman, No. 06-5122

On remand, Judge Noel L. Hillman of

this Court denied on the merits the challenge to the 2006 denial
of parole.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a

certificate of appealability.

Jones v. Hayman, No. 09-3334 (3d

Cir. Nov. 16, 2009).
Petitioner filed his ninth § 2254 petition in March, 2007.
Jones v. Hayman, Civil No. 07-1505 (D.N.J.).

On April 17, 2007,

United States District Judge Robert B. Kugler dismissed the ninth
petition as second or successive.
Petitioner filed his tenth § 2254 petition in 2008.
v. Hauck, Civil No. 08-1601 (D.N.J.).

4

Jones

On April 11, 2008, United

States District Judge Noel L. Hillman dismissed the tenth
petition as second or successive.

On July 23, 2008, the Court of

Appeals denied a certificate of appealability.

Jones v. Hauck,

No. 08-2251 (3d Cir. July 23, 2008).
On July 31, 2009, Petitioner filed his eleventh § 2254
habeas petition.

Jones v. Glover, Civil No. 09-3806 (D.N.J.)

There, Petitioner asserted 23 grounds for relief, all of which
challenged the original conviction.

On January 27, 2010, Judge

Renée Marie Bumb dismissed the eleventh petition as second or
successive.

On April 30, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit denied a certificate of appealability.

Jones v.

Glover, No. 10-1469 (3d Cir. April 30, 2010).
Petitioner’s challenge to the 2008 denial of parole was
originally opened to this Court in a Motion [53] for Enforcement
of Injunctive Relief Order and Appropriate Sanctions, dated
November 12, 2008, in Jones v. Brown, Civil No. 02-3045 (D.N.J.).
As the challenge to the 2008 denial of parole was unrelated to
the claims asserted in Civil No. 02-3045, this Court severed that
claim, directed the opening of a new and separate matter for that
claim, and granted Petitioner leave to file an amended pleading
in the new action.

Petitioner submitted an Amended Petition [8]

dated December 9, 2009.
This, then, is Petitioner’s twelfth petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but the first

5

challenging the 2008 denial of parole.

In the “Preliminary

Statement” Plaintiff asserts that he was wrongfully denied parole
on September 6, 2006, and again on June 25, 2008.

With respect

to the 2006 parole decision, his claims are identical to those
raised and decided on the merits in Jones v. Hayman, Civil No.
06-5725 (D.N.J.), and are thus second or successive.

With

respect to the 2008 decision, Petitioner alleges in the
“Preliminary Statement”:
[In 2006, a] two-member panel of the Parole Board
specifically denied Petitioner parole for essentially
maintaining his actual innocence during the hearing, on
a false basis of substantial likelihood that he would
commit a crime if released on parole, and on the false
ground that there were no mitigating factors on his
behalf for parole. In egregious violations of
Petitioner’s First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth
amendment rights.
When in fact, Petitioner maintained his actual
innocence of the crimes of which he [had] been falsely
convicted that was pending on appeal for a vindication
at the time of said parole hearing. Petitioner no
prior adult criminal record and/or was tried and
convicted as a quote first offender of his present
criminal offenses which clearly goes against likelihood
that he would commit a crime if released on parole.
And Petitioner with no prior adult criminal record,
convictions or incarcerations clearly qualifies as a
mitigating factor.
Petitioner has since been denied parole for a
second time on June 25, 2008 for the same exact reasons
as used at the September 1, 2006 hearing by the State
Parole Board to prevent his release from prison. The
N.J. State Parole Board decisions that denied
Petitioner parole were based on wholly arbitrary and
capricious reasons. In egregious violations of
Petitioner’s fundamental First amendment rights to
Freedom of Speech, his Eighth amendment protections
against cruel and unusual punishment, and his due
6

process and equal protection of law guarantees under
his Fifth and Fourteenth amendment rights of the United
States Constitution.
(Petition, Preliminary Statement.)
Petitioner does not otherwise describe the alleged
deficiencies in the 2008 parole proceeding, nor does he state
whether he has exhausted his state remedies with respect to the
2008 parole decision.

Instead, in Paragraph 12, Petitioner

alleges that he is “presently being unconstitutionally detained
and imprisoned on the following grounds,” which grounds include
23 enumerated challenges to the conviction and appeal, but not in
any way to the 2008 parole decision.
Although Petitioner’s challenge to the 2008 parole decision
was contained in the “Preliminary Statement,” rather than his
statement of grounds for relief in Paragraph 12, this Court
liberally construed the Petition as challenging the 2008 parole
decision2 and granted Petitioner leave to advise the Court
whether he wished to proceed with this challenge, pursuant to
Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2000).

All other claims

were dismissed.

2

A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than
more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be
construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce
v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney
General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v.
Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399
U.S. 912 (1970).
7

Petitioner responded with an “Affidavit Notice of AllInclusive Filing” [12] dated July 21, 2010, setting forth his
various challenges to the 2008 denial of parole.3

Respondents

have answered that the claims in the Petition are unexhausted and
meritless.

Petitioner has replied, and this matter is now ready

for decision.
II.

28 U.S.C. § 2254

As amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254 now provides, in pertinent
part:
(a) The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit
judge, or a district court shall entertain an
application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court only on the ground that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.
(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 remedies
available in the courts of the State; or
(B)(i) there is an absence of available State
corrective process; or
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process
ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.
(2) An application for a writ of habeas corpus may
be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of

3

This “Affidavit” also included challenges to a 2010 denial
of parole, which this Court dismissed without prejudice.
8

the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the
courts of the State.
(3) A State shall not be deemed to have waived the
exhaustion requirement or be estopped from reliance
upon the requirement unless the State, through counsel,
expressly waives the requirement.
(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.
Thus, a state prisoner applying for a writ of habeas corpus
in federal court must first “exhaust[] the remedies available in
the courts of the State,” unless “there is an absence of
available State corrective process[] or ... circumstances exist
that render such process ineffective ... .”4
§ 2254(b)(1).

28 U.S.C.

See also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982);

Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997), cert.
denied, 532 U.S. 919 (2001) (finding that “Supreme Court
precedent and the AEDPA mandate that prior to determining the
merits of [a] petition, [a court] must consider whether

4

Exhaustion of state remedies has been required for more
than a century, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex parte
Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886). The exhaustion doctrine was first
codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 1948, see Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.
509, 516-18 (1982), and more recently was the subject of
significant revisions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217 (April 24,
1996).
9

[petitioner] is required to present [his or her] unexhausted
claims to the [state’s] courts”).
A petitioner exhausts state remedies by presenting his
federal constitutional claims to each level of the state courts
empowered to hear those claims, either on direct appeal or in
collateral post-conviction proceedings.

See, e.g., O’Sullivan v.

Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 847 (1999) (“requiring state prisoners
[in order to fully exhaust their claims] to file petitions for
discretionary review when that review is part of the ordinary
appellate review procedure in the State”); Lambert v. Blackwell,
134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1997) (collateral attack in state
court is not required if the petitioner’s claim has been
considered on direct appeal); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(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.”)

Once a

petitioner’s federal claims have been fairly presented to the
state’s highest court, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied.
Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 350 (1989); Picard v. Connor,
404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971).
The petitioner generally bears the burden to prove all facts
establishing exhaustion.
Cir. 1993).

Toulson v. Beyer, 987 F.2d 984, 987 (3d

This means that the claims heard by the state courts

10

must be the “substantial equivalent” of the claims asserted in
the federal habeas petition.

Picard, 404 U.S. at 275.

Reliance

on the same constitutional provision is not sufficient; the legal
theory and factual basis must also be the same.

Id. at 277.

Exhaustion is not, however, a jurisdictional requirement;
rather, it is designed to allow state courts the first
opportunity to pass upon federal constitutional claims, in
furtherance of the policies of comity and federalism.

Granberry

v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 131, 134-35 (1987); Rose, 455 U.S. at
516-18.

Exhaustion also has the practical effect of permitting

development of a complete factual record in state court, to aid
the federal courts in their review.

Rose, 455 U.S. at 519.

Failure to exhaust may be excused on the basis that state
process is unavailable, but “state law must clearly foreclose
state court review of unexhausted claims.”
987.

Toulson, 987 F.2d at

In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has

stated that, “if a prisoner could establish that the activities
of the state authorities made the prisoner’s resort to the state
procedures in effect unavailable, exhaustion would be excused.”
Mayberry v. Petsock, 821 F.2d 179, 184 (3d Cir.), cert. denied,
484 U.S. 946 (1987).

However, discovery and an evidentiary

hearing should not be made available to a habeas petitioner who
claims relief from the exhaustion rule “unless the petitioner
sets forth facts with sufficient specificity that the district

11

court may be able, by examination of the allegations and the
response, if any, to determine if further proceedings are
appropriate.”

Id. at 186.

“[T]he allegations of exhaustion must

be at least as specific with respect to the facts allegedly
excusing exhaustion as is required for allegations alleging
constitutional deprivation as the basis for the habeas petition.”
Id. at 187.
Alternatively, “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus
may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the
applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the
State.”

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).

Generally, district courts should dismiss petitions
containing unexhausted claims in the absence of a state court
decision clearly precluding further relief, even if it is not
likely that a state court will consider the claims on the merits.
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. at 522; Banks v. Horn, 126 F.3d 206, 21214 (3d Cir. 1997); see also Toulson, 987 F.2d at 989 (“Because no
[New Jersey] court has concluded that petitioner is procedurally
barred from raising his unexhausted claims and state law does not
clearly require a finding of default, we hold that the district
court should have dismissed the petition without prejudice for
failure to exhaust state remedies”).

But see Christy v. Horn,

115 F.3d 201, 206-07 (3d Cir. 1997) (“in rare cases exceptional

12

circumstances of peculiar urgency may exist which permit a
federal court to entertain an unexhausted claim”).
III.

ANALYSIS

On June 25, 2008, Petitioner appeared before a panel of the
New Jersey State Parole Board.

Also on June 25, 2008, the panel

issued a decision to deny parole and setting a 36-month future
eligibility term.
full Parole Board.

Petitioner administratively appealed to the
During the pendency of that appeal, the panel

issued an amended decision, which the full Parole Board
considered in connection with the pending administrative appeal.
On June 24, 2009, the Parole Board issued a Notice of Final
Agency Decision affirming the panel’s decision to deny parole and
establish a 36-month future eligibility term.

(Decl. of

Christopher C. Josephson, SPB26.)
On or about August 19, 2009, Petitioner sent a cover letter
and attached purported Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Appellate Division.

The cover letter reads, in

pertinent part, as follows:
Dear Mr. Clerk Chacko:
Enclosed for filing in the above referred matter,
please find an original copy of a notice of appeal.
Kindly file and submit same to the court on my
behalf at your earliest possible convenience. It
should be further noted to please, if necessary, advise
me of any filing deficiency of which I would promptly
seek to correct.

13

In conclusion, any assistance that your office may
be able to provide me in this matter would of course be
truly appreciated. I thank you for your time.
(Affidavit of All-Inclusive Filing [12] Appendix H.)

The

attached document, captioned “Notice of Appeal,” and “Request to
Reserve the Right to Appeal from a Final State Parole Decision,”
reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
Please take notice that I the undersigned
appellant respectfully moves before this referred court
on application to reserve the right to appeal from an
administrative appeal of a second denial on June 25,
2008 by a board panel of parole filed on December 22,
2008 with the state “full” parole board pending a final
agency decision rendered by, if adverse, in this
matter.
Appellant would then file an appeal brief shortly
following said long overdue final agency decision, if
adverse, in knowing the reasons therefor and what
factual and legal bases he should proceed on.
(Affidavit of All-Inclusive Filing [12] Appendix H.)
On October 2, 2009, the Clerk of the Appellate Division
responded as follows, in pertinent part.
RE: Ronald Jones vs New Jersey State Parole Board
We are returning herein, unfiled, your papers in
reference to the above-captioned matter due to the
following:
...
[X] Other: The Appellate Court Clerk’s office is a
“filing” office. This office does not investigate
problems, provide legal representation, nor give legal
advice. If it is your intent to seek judicial review
in the Appellate Division, a Pro Se kit is enclosed for
you to complete and return to this office together with
a copy of the order or decision you are appealing.
Please be advised that according to Appellate Court
14

Rules you have 45 days from the date of the decision in
which to file your appeal. Anything beyond that time
limit will require you to also file a notice of motion
to file your appeal out of time, along with a
certification explaining the extraordinary
circumstances and good cause for the enlargement of the
time period, which will be forwarded to the Court for
its consideration. All forms submitted must be printed
or typed and have your original signature where
required.
If the deficiency noted above is corrected and the
original notice of appeal/letter resubmitted within
ten(10) days of the date of this notice, the appeal
will be filed as of the original received date. Please
return a copy of this notice with the appeal to
facilitate handling and re-serve all parties.
(Affidavit of All-Inclusive Filing [12] Appendix I.)

A Civil Pro

Se Kit was enclosed.
Here, state law provides administrative and judicial review
processes applicable to Petitioner’s claims.

Specifically, any

denial of parole by an Adult Panel is appealable to the Parole
Board, provided certain conditions are met.
Title 10 Sec. 71-4.2.

N.J. Admin. Code

In addition, New Jersey law provides an

absolute right to appeal any action or decision of a State
administrative agency to the Superior Court, Appellate Division,
both under the State Constitution, N.J. Const. Art. VI, Sec. 5,
para. 4; Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 166 N.J. 113,
172 (N.J.), modified on other grounds, 167 N.J. 619 (2001), and
under the New Jersey Court Rules, Pressler, Current New Jersey
Court Rules, Rule 2:2-3(a)(2) (2001).

This exclusive procedure

encompasses appeals from “inaction as well as action of a State

15

administrative agency.”

Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole

Board, 296 N.J. Super. 437, 459-460 (App. Div. 1997), modified on
other grounds and affirmed, 154 N.J. 19 (1998); Johnson v. State
Parole Board, 131 N.J. Super. 513, 517-18 (App. Div. 1974),
certif. denied, 67 N.J. 94 (1975).

See also Petrucelli v.

Department of Civil Service, 28 N.J. Super. 572, 575 (App. Div.
1953) (“The import of the rule embraces official administrative
conduct of a negative character as well, such as, for example,
the refusal to consider a meritorious petition, or to conduct a
hearing, or to render any decision in a controversial cause
appropriately before the [agency].”).
Contrary to the administrative record produced by
Respondents, Petitioner asserted initially, in his Affidavit of
All-Inclusive Filing that the full Parole Board never rendered a
final decision in his appeal from the 2008 denial of parole, and,
in his reply, that he never received a copy of the decision, so
he could not have exhausted his state remedies.

(Affidavit of

All-Inclusive Filing [12] at ¶ 22; Reply [24].)
Even if Petitioner never received a copy of the
administrative appeal decision of the full Parole Board, his
failure to exhaust state remedies is not excused.

As noted

above, New Jersey law provides an avenue for judicial review of
agency inaction.

Petitioner had prior experience pursuing his

administrative and judicial appeal rights with respect to the

16

denial of parole.

Certainly, if he believed that the full Parole

Board was failing to act timely on his administrative appeal,
state law permitted him to appeal that agency inaction, using the
panel decision as the final agency decision.

Even after

receiving notice from the Appellate Division that there was a
deficiency in his purported Notice of Appeal, Petitioner failed
to make any effort to correct that deficiency and to proceed with
a judicial appeal of the only agency decision - the panel
decision - that he had received.
Petitioner has failed to establish that either “there is an
absence of available State corrective process[] or ...
circumstances exist that render such process ineffective ... .”
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

Accordingly, this Petition will be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies, and this Court will not address the merits of the
claims asserted in the Petition.
IV.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be
taken from a final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

“A petitioner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree

17

with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims
or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate
to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”

Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).
“When the district court denies a habeas petition on
procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying
constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows,
at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.”

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

Here, jurists of reason would not find the correctness of
this Court’s procedural ruling to be debatable.

No certificate

of appealability shall issue.
V.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Petition must be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state
remedies.

No certificate of appealability shall issue.

An appropriate order follows.

s/Peter G. Sheridan
Peter G. Sheridan
United States District Judge
Dated:

July 18, 2011

18