Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00594/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00594-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BRADLEY JOSEPH STEIGER, # 229229, )

 )

Petitioner, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:16cv594-MHT

 ) (WO)

MICHAEL STRICKLAND, et al., )

 )

Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause is before the court on Bradley Joseph Steiger’s (“Steiger”) amended pro

se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Doc. Nos. 22 & 27.1

Steiger, an Alabama inmate, challenges the Alabama Department ofCorrections’ (“ADOC”)

jail credit/release date calculations for his state prison sentence for production of child

pornography. In their answer filed on September 23, 2016 (Doc. No. 50), the Respondents

assert that Steiger has failed to exhaust his state court remedies regarding his claims and that,

therefore, his habeas petition should be dismissed without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

A petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by “a person in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has

Document numbers (“Doc. No.”) are those assigned by the Clerk of Court in this

1

action. Page references are to those assigned by CM/ECF. References to exhibits (“Ex.”)

are to those included with the Respondents’ answer (Doc. No. 50).

Case 2:16-cv-00594-MHT-WC Document 62 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 5
exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the [convicting] State.” 28 U.S.C. §

2254(1)(b)(1)(A). Because Steiger is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court,”

he is subject to § 2254’s exhaustion requirement. See Dill v. Holt, 371 F.3d 1301, 1302-03

(11th Cir. 2004). “An applicant 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).

“[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any

constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate

review process,” including review by the state’s court of last resort, even if review in that

court is discretionary. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); see Pruitt v. Jones,

348 F.3d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir. 2003). A complete round of the state appellate process

includes discretionary appellate review “when that review is part of the ordinary appellate

review procedure in the State.” O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 847.

Under Alabama law, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the state circuit

court is the proper method to initiate a challenge to the State’s calculation of the time an

inmate must serve in prison. See, e.g. Gunn v. State, 12 So.3d 711, 712 (Ala. Crim. App.

2007); Day v. State, 879 So.2d 1206, 1207 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). To invoke “one

complete round” of Alabama’s established appellate review process, a petitioner receiving

an unfavorable decision by the state circuit court must then properly seek review in the

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals and, if an unfavorable decision is obtained in the

2

Case 2:16-cv-00594-MHT-WC Document 62 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 5
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, properly seek certiorari review by the Alabama

Supreme Court. Williams v. Billups, No. 1:13cv929-WHA, 2016 WL 3007140, at *2 (Ala.

M.D. Mar. 30, 2016); see Dill, 371 F.3d at 1303; Pruitt, 348 F.3d at 1359.

The Respondents’ answer and the materials before this court reflect that Steiger filed

a state petition for writ of habeas corpus, with attachments, in the Montgomery County

Circuit Court on March 9, 2016, alleging that State officials had miscalculated his “jail

credit” by 1,009 days and that his release date should be August 10, 2016, instead of his

scheduled release date of May 15, 2019. See Ex. G at 2-17. The State filed a motion to

dismiss with supporting exhibits on May 31, 2016. Ex. H. The circuit court summarily

dismissed the habeas petition on June 6, 2016. Ex I. Steiger filed a “notice ofsuperintending

appeal to Ala. S. Ct.” on June 17, 2016, alleging it would be futile to appeal to the Alabama

Court of Criminal Appeals. Ex. J. The Alabama Supreme Court transferred Steiger’s appeal

to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals by written order issued on June 20, 2016. Ex. K. 

The matter is currently pending in the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, awaiting further

action of that court. See Ex. L. It is therefore apparent that Steiger has not yet exhausted his

available state court remedies regarding the claims in his federal habeas petition.

This court afforded Steiger an opportunity to show cause why his petition should not

be dismissed for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. See Doc. Nos. 51 & 55. Steiger,

however, has failed to present this court with a persuasive ground for waiving the exhaustion

requirement. This court does not deem it appropriate to rule on Steiger’s federal habeas

3

Case 2:16-cv-00594-MHT-WC Document 62 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 5
claims without first requiring that he exhaust his available state court remedies. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(1)(b)(2). Consequently, Steiger’s petition for writ of habeas corpus should

be dismissed without prejudice so he can pursue those remedies. 

CONCLUSION

It is therefore the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that Steiger’s 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief (Doc. Nos. 22 & 27) should be DISMISSED

without prejudice, because Steiger has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. 

It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or

before November 21, 2016. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal

conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or

general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate

Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and

factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the party to challenge

on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions

accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest

injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. See Stein

v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all

4

Case 2:16-cv-00594-MHT-WC Document 62 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 5
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on

September 30, 1981.

Done this 7th day of November, 2016.

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 2:16-cv-00594-MHT-WC Document 62 Filed 11/07/16 Page 5 of 5