Bennett v. Holt

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/20/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

TRACY EVELYN WATTS BENNETT
Petitioner,
v.
BILL HOLT
Respondent.

]
]
]
]
]
]
]

No. 3:13-0991
Judge Trauger

MEMORANDUM
The petitioner, proceeding pro se, is a parolee living in Cookeville, Tennessee.1 Docket Entry
No.24. She brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against Bill Holt, Sheriff of Robertson
County, seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
I. Background
In November, 2006, the petitioner pled guilty in Putnam County to (1) the sale of cocaine
over 0.5 grams, and (2) the sale of cocaine under 0.5 grams. For these crimes, she received
concurrent sentences of ten years and five years, respectively, to be served on probation in a
Community Corrections Program. Docket Entry No. 17-1.
While in the Community Corrections Program, the petitioner tested positive for cocaine,
leading to the revocation of her probation. She was sentenced to another year of “split confinement”.
Docket Entry No. 21-1 at pg. 9.

1

A parolee is considered to be in custody for purposes of habeas corpus. Rosales-Garcia
v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386,394-95 (6th Cir.2003)(en banc).
1

Upon petitioner’s return to the Community Corrections Program, she again violated the terms
of her probation. Id. at pg. 11. The petitioner received another sentence of one year of split
confinement. Id. at pg. 14.
On August 21, 2009, the petitioner was charged with assault and the theft of property. Id. at
pg. 15. Her probation was revoked for a third time and she was sent to jail “to serve the original
sentence imposed”, with credit given for the time served during various stints in the county jail. The
petitioner, however, was not given credit for any time served while she was participating in the
Community Corrections Program. Id. at pg. 19.
II. Procedural History
On August 26, 2013, the petitioner initiated the instant action with the filing of a habeas
corpus petition (Docket Entry No. 1). In the petition, the petitioner alleges that she has been
“illegally restrained of her liberty” because the state trial court failed to credit her with time served
while she was a participant in the Community Corrections Program.
Upon its receipt, the Court examined the petition and determined that the petitioner had
stated a colorable claim for relief. Accordingly, an order (Docket Entry No. 8) was entered directing
the respondent to file an answer, plead or otherwise respond to the petition.
The respondent answered by filing a Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry No. 16), asserting that
the instant action is untimely. The Court determined that there was no limitation period applicable
to a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and denied the Motion. The respondent was directed
to submit a responsive pleading addressing the merits of the petition. Docket Entry No. 18.
Presently pending before the Court is the respondent’s Answer (Docket Entry No. 22) to the
petition, to which the petitioner has offered no reply.

2

Having carefully considered the petition, respondent’s Answer, and the expanded record, it
appears that an evidentiary hearing is not needed in this matter. See Smith v. United States of
America, 348 F.3d 545, 550 (6th Cir. 2003)(an evidentiary hearing is not required when the record
conclusively shows that the petitioner is entitled to no relief). Therefore, the Court shall dispose of
the petition as the law and justice require.
III. Analysis of the Claim
A § 2241 petition for federal habeas corpus relief will not be considered unless the petitioner
first exhausts all available state court remedies for the claim presented in her petition. Hamm v.
Saffle, 300 F.3d 1213, 1216 (6th Cir.2002). Once petitioner’s federal claim has been raised in the
highest state court available, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied, even if that court refused to
consider the claim. Manning v. Alexander, 912 F.2d 878, 883 (6th Cir. 1990).2
The petitioner bears the burden of proving that she has exhausted those remedies. Rust v.
Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir.1994). The order revoking the petitioner’s probation and denying her
credit for time served in the Community Corrections Program was entered on March 19, 2010.
Docket Entry No. 21-1 at pg. 19. She did not appeal that order.
More than three years later, on May 13, 2013, the petitioner filed a Motion in the Criminal
Court of Putnam County seeking relief in the form of credit for time served while in the Community
Corrections Program. Id. at pg. 20. Two days later, the Motion was denied. Id. at pg. 24. The denial
was not challenged on appeal. Therefore, as of yet, the petitioner’s claim has never been offered to
the Tennessee appellate courts for review.

2

In Tennessee, a petitioner need only take her claim to the Tennessee Court of Criminal
Appeals in order to fully exhaust her available state court remedies. Rule 39, Tenn. Sup. Ct.
Rules; see also Adams v. Holland, 324 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2003).
3

Unfortunately, at this late date, the petitioner is no longer able to raise her claim as a federal
issue in state court. See Rule 4(a), Tenn. R. App. P. Therefore, by way of procedural default, the
petitioner has technically met the exhaustion requirement with respect to her claim. Alley v. Bell,
307 F.3d 380, 385 (6th Cir. 2002)(if an unexhausted claim would be procedurally barred under state
law, that claim is procedurally defaulted for purposes of federal habeas corpus review).
The exhaustion of a claim via procedural default does not, however, automatically entitle a
habeas petitioner to federal review of that claim. To prevent a federal habeas petitioner from
circumventing the exhaustion requirement in such a manner, the Supreme Court has held that a
petitioner who fails to comply with state rules of procedure governing the timely presentation of
federal constitutional issues forfeits the right to federal review of those issues, absent cause for the
noncompliance and some showing of actual prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional
violations. Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162 (1996).
The petitioner’s pleadings offer nothing to suggest cause for the failure to exhaust her credit
for time served claim as a question of federal law in the state courts in a timely manner.
Consequently, the petitioner’s failure to exhaust her claim in the state courts prevents her from
obtaining federal habeas corpus relief. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 297-98 (1989)(denial of a
claim is appropriate when the federal claim was not raised in the state appellate courts for review).
An appropriate order will be entered.

____________________________
Aleta A. Trauger
United States District Judge

4