Wilson v. Nohe
Filing
17
MEMORANDUMM OPINION AND ORDER The Court adopts the 15 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; denying as moot 13 Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 11 Motion to Reconsider filed by Tammy S. Wilson; grants 9 Mot ion to Dismiss filed by Lori Nohe; Petitioner's 16 objections are denied; Petitioner may re-file this action in this Court after she has exhausted the State Court remedies available to her. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 7/6/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (dcm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
TAMMY S. WILSON,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-01383
LORI NOHE, Warden,
Lakin Correctional Center,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are the Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 2),
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Petition (ECF 9), Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider
Appointment of Counsel (ECF 11), Petitioner’s Amendment to her Motion to Reconsider
Appointment of Counsel (ECF 13), and Petitioner’s Specific Written Objections (ECF 16) to
Magistrate Judge Eifert’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations (ECF 15). For the following
reasons, Petitioner’s objections are DISMISSED without prejudice so that she may exhaust the State
court remedies available to her. The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Eifert’s Proposed Findings
and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court disposes of the pending motions as follows:
Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF 9) is GRANTED; Petitioner’s petition (ECF 2) is
DISMISSED without prejudice so that she may exhaust the State court remedies available to her;
Petitioner’s motion to reconsider (ECF 11) and amendment to her motion (ECF 13) are DENIED
as moot; and Petitioner’s objections (ECF 16) are DENIED.
I. Background
Petitioner, Tammy S. Wilson, is currently incarcerated on a first degree murder charge,
serving a life term of imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Judge Eifert’s proposed findings
and recommendations accurately recount the factual history of the underlying crime, so the Court
will not repeat it here. The Court’s background inquiry will instead be limited to a brief recounting
of the procedural history of Petitioner’s efforts to obtain release on parole. Petitioner has met with
the West Virginia Parole Board on three separate occasions, being denied parole each time. See
West Virginia Parole Board Recommendations/Decisions, ECF 2-3. Following the most recent
Parole Board meeting, on August 26, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad
subjiciendum in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, which that court denied in a
cursory opinion—apparently without prejudice. See Op. of Supreme Ct. of Appeals of W. Va., ECF
12-1, at 30–31. Petitioner subsequently filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 See Pet’r’s Pet., ECF 2.
II. Discussion
28 U.S.C. § 2254 requires that prisoners exhaust the remedies available to them through the
State courts prior to pursuing habeas relief in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b), (c).2
1
Magistrate Judge Eifert points out that this may be the wrong statutory vehicle for
Petitioner’s motion. Proposed Findings & Recommendations, ECF 15, at 4, n.2. The Court concurs
that this legal issue is of no import at this stage as Petitioner’s petition is being dismissed for failure
to exhaust state remedies. Id.
2
(b) An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to
the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted
the remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either an absence of available State
corrective process or the existence of circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect
the rights of the prisoner. (c) An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies
(continued...)
-2-
Prisoners being held pursuant to a judgment of the West Virginia courts may exhaust their remedies
in the following three ways: by direct appeal of cognizable federal constitutional claims; by petition
filed in West Virginia circuit court pursuant to West Virginia Code § 53-4A-1, followed by appeal
of any adverse judgment to the West Virginia Supreme Court; or by petition filed under the original
jurisdiction of the West Virginia Supreme Court. See Lester v. Ballard, 2011 WL 183376, at *6
(S.D. W. Va. 2011). Judge Eifert properly found that the exhaustion requirement applies to petitions
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Proposed Findings & Recommendations, ECF 15, at 7 (citing Ali
v. Waid, 2009 WL 1872972, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. 2009) (“Although, unlike § 2254, the statutory
language of § 2241 does not expressly require exhaustion of state judicial remedies, ‘a body of case
law has developed holding that federal courts should abstain from the exercise of that 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.’”) (internal citations omitted)).
Petitioner relies on Brown v. Allen to argue that she has adequately exhausted her remedies
so as to be able to bring her claims before this Court. Pet’r’s Pet., ECF 2, at 10; see also Brown v.
Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 487 (1953) (“We have interpreted § 2254 as not requiring repetitious
applications to state courts for collateral relief, . . . but clearly the state's procedure for relief must
be employed in order to avoid the use of federal habeas corpus as a matter of procedural routine to
review state criminal rulings. A failure to use a state’s available remedy, in the absence of some
interference or incapacity, . . . bars federal habeas corpus.”). However, Brown does not provide
dispositive guidance as to whether a district court must find exhaustion of remedies when a state
2
(...continued)
available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the
law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.
-3-
court dismissal a) is without prejudice, and b) has not been denied certiorari by the U.S. Supreme
Court. In Brown, the U.S. Supreme Court had denied certiorari on the relevant petitions prior to the
district court accepting the federal habeas petition. See Brown, 344 U.S. at 447. In the instant case,
Petitioner did not seek certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, and thus the opinion of the West
Virginia Supreme Court on its own provides a weaker basis than there was in Brown for a court to
find exhaustion of remedies.
Moreover, in this case, the West Virginia Supreme Court has merely dismissed the petition
without prejudice and in cursory fashion (see Op. of Supreme Ct. of Appeals of W. Va., ECF 12-1),
whereas, in Brown, the State supreme court dismissed the relevant petitions with prejudice on the
merits. See generally State v. Brown, 63 S.E.2d 99 (N.C. 1951); State v. Speller 57 S.E.2d 759 (N.C.
1950); State v. Daniels, 57 S.E.2d 653 (N.C. 1950) (expressing substantive State supreme court
decisions with prejudice in the three cases that were consolidated into Brown v. Allen).
Judge Eifert discussed authority holding that “‘if the [West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals] dismisses the petition without prejudice to the petitioner’s application for relief in a court
of record, the federal court should decline the petition until the prisoner has pursued the state
remedies [that] the Supreme Court of Appeals has made available . . . .’” McDaniel v. Holland, 631
F. Supp. 1544, 1545 (S.D. W. Va. 1986) (quoting Leftwich v. Coiner, 424 F.2d 157, 160–61 (4th Cir.
1970); accord Lester, 2011 WL 183376, at *6 (“an original jurisdiction petition that is denied
without an indication that the denial is with prejudice following a determination on the merits will
not exhaust the prisoner’s state court remedies”); see also In re Gasery, 116 F.3d 1051, 1052 (5th
Cir. 1997) (holding that dismissal for failure to exhaust state remedies does not bar a petitioner from
returning to federal court). Petitioner may still bring her claim before an appropriate State circuit
-4-
court, and may pursue an appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court. See Proposed Findings &
Recommendations, ECF 15, at 7–8; see also Lester, 2011 WL 183376, at *6. Thus, for the purposes
of ascertaining whether Petitioner has exhausted her remedies, the West Virginia Supreme Court
decision does not contain the same finality that the state court decisions contained in the Brown
cases.
Additionally, the Court notes that federal courts should strive to exercise comity when state
courts are obliged to interpret federal law. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844 (1999)
(“State courts, like federal courts, are obliged to enforce federal law. Comity thus dictates that when
a prisoner alleges that his continued confinement for a state court conviction violates federal law,
the state courts should have the first opportunity to review this claim and provide any necessary
relief.”) (citations omitted). In the absence of either a U.S. Supreme Court denial of certiorari, or
a state court denial with prejudice, the Court FINDS that the interests of comity weigh in favor of
requiring Petitioner to exhaust the State court remedies that remain available to her.
In her written objections, Petitioner offers ample discussion of the substantive grounds
supporting her petition. See Pls.’ Specific Written Objections, ECF 16, at 2–9. However, on the
basis of the foregoing considerations, this Court declines to address those substantive questions until
Petitioner exhausts the remedies that are available to her in the State courts.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice so
that she may bring her claims before an appropriate State circuit court, and exhaust any appropriate
appeals.
The Court therefore ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Eifert’s Proposed Findings and
Recommendations. The Court further GRANTS Petitioner leave to re-file this action in this Court
-5-
after she has exhausted the State court remedies available to her. Petitioner’s right to re-file this
action will be subject to the federal statute of limitations for habeas petitions by state prisoners. See
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), (2). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this written Opinion
and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER:
July 6, 2011
ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-6-
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?