Hawkins v. Peterson
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: When a habeas corpus petitioner has failed to exhaust all state court remedies for each claim in his petition, a district court is obliged to dismiss the petition. Accordingly, the petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED and this ac tion is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. It is so ORDERED. ENTER this 22nd day of June 2017. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 6/22/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
PAUL L. HAWKINS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The petitioner, proceeding pro se, is an inmate at the Metro Davidson County Detention
Facility in Nashville. He brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against his custodian,
Warden Peterson, seeking a writ of habeas corpus.1
In July, 1984, a jury in Shelby County found the petitioner guilty of first degree burglary,
possession of marijuana, being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and being an habitual
criminal. For these crimes, he received a sentence of life imprisonment. Doc. No. 1 at 1.
Apparently, the petitioner was released on parole. On August 26, 2015, a Metro police officer
entered the petitioner’s home without a warrant and placed him under arrest. Id. at 5. Five days later,
he was taken to his present place of confinement where he has remained since his arrest. The
The petition (Doc. No. 1) is written out on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form. However, the
petitioner is not attacking a specific conviction. Rather, he is challenging a return to confinement
brought about by the revocation of parole. Doc. No. 1 at 14. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the appropriate
vehicle for questioning conditions of one’s parole. Edwards v. Dewalt, 681 F.3d 780, 784 (6th
petitioner alleges that the charge triggering the revocation of his parole was subsequently “disposed
of” but that he has remained incarcerated illegally. Id. at 10.
A § 2241 petition for federal habeas corpus relief will not be considered unless the petitioner
first exhausts all available state court remedies for each claim presented in his petition. Hamm v.
Saffle, 300 F.3d 1213, 1216 (6th Cir.2002). The petitioner bears the burden of proving that he has
exhausted those remedies. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir.1994).
In the petition, the petitioner asserts that there are no state court remedies to exhaust. The
petitioner states that he wrote letters to the Tennessee Board of Paroles and the Tennessee
Department of Correction but received no satisfactory response. Doc. No. 1 at 16.
The actions or inactions of the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole may be challenged
via a petition for common law writ of certiorari. Willis v. Tennessee Department of Correction, 113
S.W.3d 706,712 (Tenn.2003). Since the petitioner admits that he did not seek such review and there
is no claim that such review would be futile, the petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court
When a habeas corpus petitioner has failed to exhaust all state court remedies for each claim
in his petition, a district court is obliged to dismiss the petition. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,518-20
(1982). Accordingly, the petition (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED
It is so ORDERED.
ENTER this 22nd day of June 2017.
Aleta A. Trauger
United 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?