Bledsoe v. Lindamood

Filing 15

ORDER denying as moot 3 Motion to Hold Writ of Habeas Corpus in Abeyance; denying as moot 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 10-23-2017. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

ERIC BLEDSOE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
CHERRY LINDAMOOD, Warden
Respondent.

No. 2:17-CV-02390

ORDER

On June 6, 2017, Petitioner Eric Bledsoe filed this pro se
motion seeking to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence
under

28

U.S.C.

§

2254

(the

Ҥ 2254

Motion”).

Petitioner

challenges his sentence in State v. Bledsoe, No. W2012-01643CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 3968780 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 31, 2013),
perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov. 14, 2013).
Before the Court are three motions: (1) Petitioner’s Motion
to Hold Writ of Habeas Corpus in Abeyance, filed on June 6, 2017
(ECF No. 3); (2) Petitioner’s Motion to Check Out Appellate
Record, filed on June 6, 2017 (ECF No. 4); (3) Respondent Cherry
Lindamood’s Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
for Failure to Exhaust State Remedies (“Motion to Dismiss”),
filed on August 1, 2017 (ECF No. 12; see also ECF No. 12-1).

Petitioner responded to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss on August
25, 2017.

(ECF No. 14.)

For the following reasons, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
and

Petitioner’s

Motion

to

Abeyance are DENIED AS MOOT.

Hold

Writ

of

Habeas

Corpus

in

Petitioner’s Motion to Check Out

Appellate Record is RESERVED pending the filing of Respondent’s
amended motion.
I.

Background
On May 17, 2012, petitioner was convicted by a jury in the

Criminal Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, of aggravated rape,
aggravated burglary, and theft of property over $1000.
2013 WL 3968780, at *1.
Id.

The

Tennessee

Bledsoe,

He was sentenced to 65 years in prison.
Court

Petitioner’s convictions.

of

Criminal

Appeals

affirmed

Id. at *8.

On June 6, 2017, Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions.
1.)

(ECF No.

Petitioner argues that his convictions are invalid because

he was denied due process, he received ineffective assistance of
counsel, and his convictions violate Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307 (1979).

(Id. at 4-11.)1

Also on June 6, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion to Hold
Writ of Habeas Corpus in Abeyance and Petitioner’s Motion to
1

Unless otherwise noted, all pin cites for record citations are to the
“PageID” page number.

2

Check Out Appellate Record.

(ECF No. 3; ECF No. 4.)

The Motion

to Hold Writ of Habeas Corpus in Abeyance asks the Court to
“stay[] his federal case until he has had an opportunity to
present

his

claims

[Supreme] [C]ourt.”

for

full

consideration

to

the

Tennessee

(ECF No. 3 at 23.)

On August 1, 2017, Respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss.
Respondent argues that “this Court should deny [Petitioner’s]
motion to hold his petition in abeyance and dismiss his [§ 2254]
petition without prejudice”

because “Petitioner’s state court

remedies are . . . not fully exhausted.”
Petitioner

responded

on

August

25,

(ECF No. 12-1 at 35.)

2017.

(ECF

No.

14.)

Petitioner asks the Court to “keep [his] Writ of Habeas Corpus
Held

in

Abeyance

due

to

continual

lockdowns

at

this

prison

facility . . . which cause[] [a] delay in working on [the]
case.”
II.

(Id. at 60.)

Analysis
Respondent is correct that, “[a]s a general rule, state

prisoners seeking federal habeas relief must first exhaust all
of their available state court remedies.”

(ECF No. 12-1 at 36.)

When Petitioner filed his § 2254 Motion, he had not exhausted
his state court remedies.

Petitioner’s Rule 11 application for

permission

conviction

to

appeal

his

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

was

(Id. at 36.)

pending

the

This Court lacked

authority to grant Petitioner’s § 2254 motion.
3

before

28 U.S.C. §

2254(b); see Hannah v. Conley, 49 F.3d 1193, 1195 (6th Cir.
1995).
On August 18, 2017, shortly after Respondent had filed her
Motion to Dismiss,

the Supreme Court of Tennessee

issued an

Order denying Petitioner’s application for permission to appeal.
Bledsoe v. Tennessee, No. W2016-00419-SC-R11-PC (Tenn. Aug. 18,
2017) (per curiam).
available

state

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s last

court

remedy.

Petitioner

has

exhausted

his

state court remedies.
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT.

To the

extent Respondent continues to believe that Petitioner’s § 2254
Motion should be dismissed, Respondent shall file an amended
motion by November 6, 2017.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
and

Petitioner’s

Motion

to

Abeyance are DENIED AS MOOT.

Hold

Writ

of

Habeas

Corpus

in

Petitioner’s Motion to Check Out

Appellate Record is RESERVED pending the filing of Respondent’s
amended motion.

So ordered this 23rd day of October, 2017.

4

/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. _____
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5