Fields v. Howard

Filing 11

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 6 Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner is directed to advise the court of his intentions for proceeding in this case within twenty-one (21) days by filing an appropriate pleading as set forth above. The respondent is directed to file a response or appropriate motion within thirty (30) days of petitioners response to this Opinion and Order. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DARYL FONZEL FIELDS,
Petitioner,
v.
BRUCE HOWARD, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV 14-436-RAW-KEW

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the respondent’s motion to dismiss petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner, a former inmate of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, challenges his
conviction in Carter County District Court Case No. CF-2012-514B for Second Degree
Burglary, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies. He raises two grounds for
relief:
I.

Confrontation clause violation.

II.

Fourteenth Amendment violation of due process (insufficient
evidence).

The respondent alleges petitioner’s claims of a Confrontation Clause violation and
insufficient evidence were exhausted in Propositions I and IV of his direct appeal to the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA). Fields v. State, No. F-2013-564 (Okla. Crim.
App. June 3, 2014) (Dkt. 6-3). The respondent also asserts that under a liberal construction,
Ground I of this habeas petition raises a claim of prosecutorial misconduct during closing
arguments that was exhausted in Proposition II before the OCCA. Id.
The respondent further alleges, however, that Ground II of this habeas petition raises
the unexhausted claim that “[t]he State withheld relevant evidence that supports Petitioner’s
innocence and truthfulness of why Petitioner was at the scene. Co-defendant’s written
statement was withheld because of its untruthfulness.” (Dkt. 1 at 7). According to the

respondent, this claim potentially alleges violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), but the issue was not raised on direct appeal or in a post-conviction application.
While petitioner maintains this claim has been exhausted, he has not shown where in the
record he presented this specific issue of the co-defendant’s written statement. (Dkt. 8).
“A threshold question that must be addressed in every habeas case is that of
exhaustion.” Harris v. Champion, 15 F.3d 1538, 1554 (10th Cir. 1994). The court must
dismiss a state prisoner’s habeas petition if he has not exhausted the available state court
remedies as to his federal claims. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). In
federal habeas corpus actions, the petitioner bears the burden of showing he has exhausted
his state court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). See Clonce v. Presley, 640 F.2d
271, 273 (10th Cir. 1981); Bond v. Oklahoma, 546 F.2d 1369, 1377 (10th Cir. 1976). To
satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a claim must be presented to the State’s highest court
through a direct appeal or a post-conviction proceeding. Dever v. Kansas State Penitentiary,
36 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1994). Under the doctrine of comity, a federal court should
defer action on claims properly within its jurisdiction, until a state court with concurrent
power has had an opportunity to consider the matter. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19
(1982).
A district court has two options when faced with a “mixed” petition containing both
exhausted and unexhausted claims. One option is to require the petitioner to exhaust all his
claims in state court before bringing the petition. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510
(1982) (instructing a district court to dismiss without prejudice and allow the petitioner to
refile once the claims are exhausted); Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) (if a court
is concerned about the prisoner’s meeting the one-year filing requirement of 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d), and if “there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first
in state court,” the court can decline to dismiss the matter and issue a stay and abeyance of
the petition, while the petitioner exhausts his state court remedies). The second option is to
deny the entire petition on the merits, notwithstanding failure to exhaust, if the court is
2

convinced the unexhausted claim is without merit, or that the issue is easily resolvable
against the petitioner. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2).
After careful review, the court finds a stay and abeyance is not warranted, because
petitioner has not shown good cause for his failure to exhaust through an application for
post-conviction relief the claim concerning allegedly withheld evidence. His options for
proceeding with this action are to (1) dismiss the action without prejudice in its entirety with
the understanding that a second habeas petition could be barred by the statute of limitations,
(2) dismiss the unexhausted claim and continue with the exhausted claims, or (3) continue
this case with all claims, with the knowledge that the court will dismiss this action for failure
to exhaust all state court remedies.
Therefore, petitioner is granted twenty-one (21) days to advise the court of the
direction he intends to follow by filing one of the following: (1) a motion to dismiss this
action in its entirety without prejudice, (2) a motion to dismiss the unexhausted claim, or (3)
a notice that he intends to continue the petition with both exhausted and unexhausted claims.
Failure to respond as directed by this order will result in dismissal of this entire action.
ACCORDINGLY, the respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 6) is DENIED,
and petitioner is directed to advise the court of his intentions for proceeding in this case
within twenty-one (21) days by filing an appropriate pleading as set forth above. The
respondent is directed to file a response or appropriate motion within thirty (30) days of
petitioner’s response to this Opinion and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of September 2015.

Dated this 3rd day of September, 2015.
J4h4i0

3