Allen v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young on 7/6/2016. Copy mailed to Pro Se Petitioner. (jsmi, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
NATHAN EUGENE ALLEN,
Petitioner,
V.
Civil Action No. 3:15CV431
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Nathan Eugene Allen, a Virginia prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has moved to dismiss on the grounds that
Allen has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion
to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) will be granted.
I. Procedural History
By Order entered on October 15, 2014, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond
("Circuit Court") sentenced Allen to a three-year active sentence for his conviction of domestic
abduction. Commonwealth v. Allen, No. CR14-F-0991, at 1 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 15, 2014). Allen
appealed. On June 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals of Virginia denied Allen's appeal. Allen v.
Commonwealth, No. 2069-14-2, at 1 (Va. Ct. App. June 10, 2015). Allen failed to file a further
appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
On July 13, 2015, Allen filed his § 2254 Petition with this Court. (§ 2254 Pet. 16.) In his
§ 2254 Petition, Allen demands relief upon the following grounds:
Claim One
Appellate counsel failed to file the transcripts in a timely manner.
Claim Two
Appellate counsel failed to file a statement of facts.
Claim Three
The evidence was not sufficient to support Allen's conviction.
Claim Four
Appellate counsel failed to consult with Allen in a timely manner
which caused Allen to lose the ability to pursue an appeal before a
three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
II. Analysis
Before a state prisoner can bring a § 2254 petition in federal district court, the prisoner
must first have "exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(1)(A). State exhaustion '"is rooted in considerations of federal-state comity,"' and in
the congressional determination via federal habeas laws "that exhaustion of adequate state
remedies will 'best serve the poHcies of federalism.'" Slavek v. Hinkle, 359 F. Supp. 2d 473, 479
(E.D. Va. 2005) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 &n.lO (1973)). The
purpose of exhaustion is "to give the State an initial opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged
violations of its prisoners' federal rights." Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (internal
quotation marks omitted). The second aspect of exhaustion requires a petitioner to have offered
the state courts an adequate "'opportunity'" to address the constitutional claims advanced on
federal habeas. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (additional internal quotation marks
omitted). "To provide the State with the necessary 'opportunity,' the prisoner must 'fairly
present' his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with powers of
discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim." Id. at 29
(quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-66 (1995)).
Exhaustion requires a petitioner to utilize all available state remedies before he or she can
apply for federal habeas relief See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 847-48 (1999). As to
whether a petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies, the statute notes that a habeas
petitioner "shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the
State ... 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(c).
Here, Allen can still raise his claims for relief and the cause for default for Claim Three
by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Virginia courts. See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01654 (West 2016).
Allen fails to advance any coherent basis for permitting him to proceed
without exhausting available state court remedies.
The Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) will be GRANTED.
Allen's Motion for the
Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 6) will be DENIED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus
will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Court will DENY a certificate of appealability.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
/s/
Roderick C. Young
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: July fc .2016
Richmond, Virginia
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?