Brown v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION for complete details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 06/11/2018. Copy mailed to Petitioner.(ccol, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MILTON BROWN
a/k/a SULTAN IMMANUEL-EL-BEY,
Petitioner,
Civil No. 3:18CV136
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition(§ 2254
Petition," ECF No. 1). 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)(l)(A). "As a general rule, in the absence of 'exceptional circumstances
where the need for the remedy afforded by the writ of habeas corpus is apparent,' Bowen v.
Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 27 (1939), courts 'require[] exhaustion of alternative remedies before a
prisoner can seek federal habeas relief."' Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525, 530-31 (4th Cir. 2010)
(alteration in original) (parallel citation omitted) (quoting Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723,
793 (2008)).
Exhaustion is accomplished by presenting the claims to the Supreme Court of
Virginia for review either on direct appeal or in a collateral proceeding. Conversely, "federal
courts should abstain from the exercise of [habeas] jurisdiction if the issues raised in the petition
may be resolved either by trial on the merits in the state court or by other state procedures
available to the petitioner." Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220,225 (5th Cir. 1987) (citations
omitted); Durkin v. Davis, 538 F.2d 1037, 1041 (4th Cir. 1976) (internal quotation marks
omitted) ("Until the State has been accorded a fair opportunity by any available procedure to
consider the issue and afford a remedy if relief is warranted, federal courts in habeas proceedings
by state [inmates] should stay their hand.").
Petitioner has filed on a standardized form for filing a § 2254 petition, but has crossed out
many sections making it difficult to discern his state procedural history, or the nature of the
claims he has raised in state court. Nevertheless, it does not appear that he has raised any of his
claims in a civil action in state court or before the Supreme Court of Virginia. (See, e.g., ECF
No. 1, at 7-12.) Thus, the record fails to indicate that Petitioner has properly exhausted his state
court remedies with respect to his four claims.
Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on April 12, 2018, the Court directed
Petitioner to show cause as to why his § 2254 Petition should not be dismissed for lack of
exhaustion. (ECF No. 6.) Petitioner has responded; however, his two submissions do not
address whether he has properly exhausted any of his claims in the state courts. Rather his
various submissions amount to nothing more than gibberish about his status as a Moorish
American. (See ECF Nos. 7, 8.) Petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has exhausted his state
remedies.
He also fails to demonstrate that any exceptional circumstances warrant the
consideration of his habeas petition at this time. Accordingly, Petitioner's § 2254 Petition and
the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a judge
issues a certificate of appealability ("COA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l)(A). A COA will not issue
unless a prisoner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c){2). This requirement is satisfied only when "reasonable jurists could debate whether
(or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
2
that the issues presented were 'adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."' Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4
(1983)). Petitioner fails to satisfy this standard. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will
be DENIED.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
Date: 6 / 11 / (
Richmond, V uginia
5
Isl
John A. Gibney, Jr.
United States Distri t J
3
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?