Pickens v. Kingston
ORDER signed by Judge Thomas J Curran on February 22, 2006, dismissing without prejudice Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice. It is further ordered that 3 Mot ion to Appoint Counsel is denied. It is further ordered that 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is denied because action is being dismissed. It is further ordered that the clerk of court shall enter a judgment of dismissal as a separate document. (copy mailed to pro se petitioner)(Thomas J. Curran)
Pickens v. Kingston
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHRISTOPHER PICKENS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN PHIL KINGSTON, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER
Christopher Pickens, a prisoner in state custody, is seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted and sentenced on
Case No. 06-C-199
November 19,2002. On December 22, 2005, he was found guilty of battery, threats and disobeying orders while in prison, so his sentence was extended. He says that he has not exhausted his state remedies as required by habeas corpus procedure1 because it would be "futile because this effect the Petitioner release from prison, where by a expedited hearing is requested." Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a Person in State Custody at section IV. Pickens' stated reason for failure to exhaust is not legally sufficient. See W hite v. Peters, 990 F.3d 328, 341 (7th Cir. 1993). Therefore, the court concludes that Pickens has procedurally defaulted his claims and has not established cause for the default and ORDERS that Pickens' "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
See Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025 (7th Cir. 2004) (Inherent in the habeas p e t it io n e r' s obligation to exhaust his state court remedies before seeking relief in habeas corpus is the duty to fairly present his federal claims to the state courts).
Page 2 of 2
U.S.C. § 2254 by a Person in State Custody" (filed February 17, 2006) IS DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pickens' "Motion for Appointment of Counsel" (filed February 17, 2006) IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pickens' "Petition for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis" (filed February 17, 2006) IS DENIED because this action is being dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal as a separate document. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. This judgment shall provide that: Petitioner Christopher Pickens brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the court, the Honorable Thomas J. Curran, District Judge, presiding, and the petition having been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed without prejudice. Done and Ordered in Chambers at the United States Courthouse, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of February, 2006.
s/ Thomas J. Curran Thomas J. Curran United States District Judge 2
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?