# UnitedStates Cou rt of App eals
For the Seventh Circui t Chic ago, I lli nois 60604

Arg ued May 28, 2014 Deci ded August 19, 2014

Before
JOEL M. FLAU M, Circ uit Judge

DANIEL A. MANIO N, Circ uit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TIND ER, Circ uit Judge

No. 13-1748
JOSEPH M. MO NEGAIN, III,

Petitioner-Appellant

,

v. JESSE CAR LTON, Chi ef Probation Offi cer, Responden t-Appellee

. Appeal from the United Stat es Di stric t Court for t he Nort hern Di stric t of Indi ana, South Bend Di vis i on.
No. 13-cv-55
James T. Moo dy, Judge

.

O R D E R Joseph Monegain w as convi cted i n Indi ana state courtof two counts of cri minal confinement and one count of batter y. He appealed, but the state cour t affi rmed hi s convic tion. Monegain then fi led a petiti on i n state courtfor po st-convi cti on relief, NON PRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be ci ted only i n acc or dance w i th Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 13-1748 Page 2

arg uing, among o ther t hings, ineffec tive ass i stance of appellate couns el. Moneg ai n also fi led a petiti on for habeas corpus reli ef in federal court. The di stric t courtdeni ed that petiti on wi thout pr ejudic e becaus e Mo negain ’s state post-convic tion proceedi ngs were sti ll pending. In di smi ssing hi s peti tion, the di stric t courtrej ected Mo negain’s argument that he was excus ed from exhaustin g hi s state court r emedi es bec ause of an “i nordinate” and “un

justifi able” delay in the state court ’s resolution of hi s cas e. The di stric t courtalso deni ed Moneg ain a certifi cate of appealabi li ty, but t hi s court gr anted the cert i fi cate of appealabi li ty. F i ve day s bef or e or al argument, t he state tr i al court deni ed Moneg ai n’s peti tion for post-convic tion reli ef, rej ecti ng Mo negain’s clai m of i neffec tive ass i stance of coun sel, mali ci ous prosecuti on, and judi ci al bi as. Whi le the state t rial c ourthad delayed Moneg ai n’s cas e for mor e than two y ears, now that it has i ssu ed i ts deci si on ther e i s no longer an i mpedi ment to M onegain s eeking resolution of hi s state post-convic tion peti tion in the Indi ana appellate courts. Accordin gly, because Moneg ai n has n ot e xhausted hi s state court r emedi es, we affi rm the dis tr i ct court’s di smi ssalof hi s peti tion for habeas c or pus w i thout pr ejudic e.
I.

In Februar y 2008, Mo negaingot i nto a fight wi th hi s ex-gi rlfriend Carol McElfresh, w i th whom he sti ll li ved. During the fi ght, he star ted pushing, gr abbing, 1 and throwin g McElfresh. Two other indi vidu als, Jes si ca Walpole and Larry M urray , were also li ving in the same hous e. Walpole heard lo ud voic es and s ounds “li ke things were bei ng thr own” and s he went ups tairs to i nvestigate. Walpole to ld Moneg ai n to g et away from McElfresh. Moneg ai n turned on Walpole and pushed h er ag ai nst the stov e. McElfresh got bet ween Walpole and Monegain, b ut Mo negain gr abbed McElfresh and threw her do wn again. Walpole then gr abbed a kni fe from the stov eto p and ran to t he basem ent stairs, yelling to Murr ay to call the poli ce. McElfresh s aw Monegain goi ng to her bedro om sayi ng “I k now; I’ll show them; I’ll get t he gun.” She saw hi m head to the si de of the bed where she kept her shotgun and crouch down . McElfresh ran to her nei ghbor’ s hous e and told them to call 911. Meanwh i le, Walpole and Murr ay staye d in the basement wai tin g for the polic e to arr i ve. F ro m the basem ent, Mur ray could s ee the bott om of Mo negain ’s legs at the t op of the stairs and heard hi m “breech the gun” wh i le

We tak e these facts fro m the Indi ana appellate court deci si on affi rmi ng 1 Moneg ai n’s convi cti on, whi ch are presumed to be corr ect. Harris v. Thompson , 698 F.3d 609, 613 (7th Ci r. 2012).No. 13-1748 Page 3

yellin g “I’ m going to kill you, mother f*****, I’m go i ng to blow your f****** heads off.” After a standoff w i th polic e, Mo negainevent ually exited the house. A search of the house revealed a shot gun loaded wi th two live shells on to p of McElfresh’s b ed.
Based on these events, Mo negainwas charged and later convic ted inIndi ana state court of two counts of cri minal confinement and one count of batter y. He was sentenced on Ju ly 28, 2008, to concu rr ent ter ms of ten years’ im pris onment, wi th four year s of the sentence s uspen ded. He served three y ears i n pri son and then was released and began probation on July 28, 2011. Monegain c ompleted hi s probation on Jul y 28, 2014. 2

Follo wing hi s convi cti on, Mo negainappealed, chal lengi ng the suffi ci ency of the evidenc e. The Indi ana Courtof Appeals affi rmed. Mo negain di d not seek r eview in the Indi ana Supreme Cour t or the United Stat es Supreme Cour t. On Apr i l 20, 2010, Moneg ai n fi led a pro sepetiti on for po st-convi cti on relief in the state t rial c ourt, allegin g, among ot her things, ineffec tive ass i stance of appellate couns el. After fi ling that pet i tion, Moneg ai n fi led several mot i ons and peti tions i n state courtseeki ng to force the stat e tr i al court t o r ule on hi s cl ai ms. H e also amended the post-convi cti on petiti on thr ee tim es, wi th the fi nal amendm ent comi ng on August 1, 2011. On Aug ust 29, 2011, the tr i al court set a briefing schedu le, giving Mo negainsi xty days to file s upporting affi davits an d the St ate si xty days to r espond. The State did not respond and the petiti on was f

ully bri efed as of February 29, 2012.

After nearly a y ear wi th no action by the state tr i al judge o n hi s post-convi cti on petiti on, on January 29, 2013, M onegain fi led thi s peti tion for a wri t of habeas corpus. 3

Even tho ugh Moneg ai n has s erv ed hi s sen tence and completed hi s term of 2 probat i on, hi s peti tion for habeas reli ef i s not moot becau se “we presum e collater al consequen ces fro m hi s cri minal convi cti on,” such as “the inabi li ty t o possess fi rear ms lawfu lly.” Torza la v. United States , 545 F.3d 517, 521 (7th Cir. 2008).

He had previousl y fi led a petiti on for habeas relief in Janu ary 2012, but that 3 petiti on was di smi ssed w i thout pr ejudic e becaus e Mo negain’s post-convi cti on proceedings w ere still pend i ng and thi s court deni ed Moneg ai n’s request for a (continued...)No. 13-1748 Page 4

In hi s pro se habeas p etiti on, Mo negain alleged thathi s appellate atto rney was i neffec tive for fai ling to arg ue hi s trial c ounsel w as ineffec tive by not o bjectin g to the use of inadmi ssi

ble evid ence and als o by his “fai lure to i mpeach .” Before t he di stric t court, M onegain ac knowledged t hat he had not ex haus ted hi s state court r emedi es, bu t arg ued that he was excus ed from doing so bec ause of an “inordinate” and “unjusti fi able” delay i n the state court ’s resolution of hi s cas e. The di stric t courtrej ected that ar gument and thi s court gr anted a certifi cate of appealabi li ty. Now repr esented by counsel, Monegain appeals. In hi s bri ef, Moneg ai n agai n arg ued that he i s excus ed from the ex haus tion requi rement because of the state tr i al court’s delay in ruling on hi s post-convi cti on petiti on. We held or al argument for thi s appeal on Wednesday, May 28, 2014. The Fr i day before ar gument, May 23, 2014, the state t rial c ourti ssu ed a three -page deci si on denyin g Mo negain ’s peti tion for postconvic tion reli ef. In that deci si on, the stat e tr i al court r ejecte d Moneg ai n’s arguments of i neffec tive ass i stance of coun sel, mali ci ous prosecuti on, and judi ci al bi as. As di scu ssed below, bec ause the state tr i al court delay has ended and the St ate pr ov i des a vi able option for r eli ef by appeal to t he Indi ana appellate court, we affi rm the dis tr i ct court’s di smi ssalof Mo negain ’s habeas petiti on wi thout pr ejudic e.
II. On appeal, Moneg ain argues that he is excused fro m exhausting hi s state court remedies

. Or di naril y, before seeki ng federal habeas reli ef a peti tioner mus t r ai se hi s

4

(...conti nued) 3 certifi cate of appealabi li ty.
Ini tiall y, the g ov ernment ar gues that this court lacks jur i sdi cti on ov er 4 Moneg ai n’s appeal b ecaus e the dis tr i ct court had deni ed hi s peti tion for habeas reli ef wi thout pr ejudic e. However , “[t]here is no gener al rule that dis mi ssal s wi thout prej udi ce are nonfi nal order s and therefore nonappealale under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Scher ing-Plough Healthcare Prod., Inc. v. Sc hwarz Parma, Inc. , 586 F.3d 500, 507 (7th Cir. 2009). Rather, “when the case does end in the di stric t court, the di smi ssali s ri pe for appeal even if

a si mi lar case may be fi led in the future becaus e the dis mi ssalwas wi thout pr ejudic e.” Id. Conve rsely, when a di smi ssalwi thout pr ejudic e can be (continued...)No. 13-1748 Page 5

federal clai ms in state court

. Bolto n v. Akpore, 730 F.3d 685, 694 (7th Cir. 2013). However, under the Antiterr or i sm an d Effec tive Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) , a petiti oner need not ex haus t hi s state court r emedi es i f “ci rcums tances exi st that r ender suchprocess i neffec tive to pr ote ct the rights of the appli cant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). Moneg ai n argues that such c i rcums tances exi st i n hi s cas e becaus e hi s peti tion for po st-convi cti on relief w as “un justifi ably” stalled in the state t rial c ourtfor an “i nordinate” amount of tim e—from Fe bruary 29, 2012, until May 23, 2014. Accordingly, Moneg ai n argues he i s excus ed from exhaustin g hi s state court r emedi es. See Jackson v. Duc kwo rth , 112 F.3d 878, 881 (7th Cir. 1997) ( holdi ng, pre-AEDPA, that a pet i tioner i s excused fro m exhausting state cour t r emedi es i f the delay is “i nordinate” and “unjusti fi able”). However, becaus e the state tr i al court has now i ssu ed i ts deci si on, the i mpedi ment to M onegain obtaining rev i ew in the Indi ana state court s has been
remov ed and the current ci rcums tances of thi s cas e do notrender the state pr ocess i neffec tive. See Vr eeland v. Davis, 543 Fed. App. 739, 742 (10th Cir. 2013) (rejecting the petiti oner’ s argument that his fai lure to exhaust should b e excused bec ause of the delay i n hi s di rect appeal becaus e the delay at the courtof appeals “i s over ”); Slater v. Chatman , 147 Fed. App. 959, 960 (11th Cir. 2005) (h oldi ng that e ven after a si xte enmonth delay inthe state cour t, “[g]i ven thatthe state cour ts are now mov i ng forwar d wi th [the petiti oner’ s] di rect appeal, we cannot say that ‘ there i s an ab senc e of availabl e St ate cor rective pro cess [ ] or [that] ci rcums tances exi st that r ender suchprocess i neffec tive to pr ote ct the rights of the appli cant’”) (qu oting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)( B)(i )- (i i )))

. Cf. Hu ghes v. Stafford, 780 F.2d 1580, 1581–82 (11th Cir. 1986) ( holdi ng under preAEDPA hab eas statute thatpetiti oner was not ex cus ed from the ex haus tion requi rement becau se “[a] lthough the eight-year delay inthe state’ s ruling on Hughes’ habeas c or pus petiti on should not have o ccu rr ed, the state cour t nonethelessacted on the merits wi th

(...conti nued) 4 “i mmedi ately curable,” suchas through an amended complaint that e laborat es on or changes all egat i ons, su ch a dec i si on would not be final. Id. In this case, the di stric t court’s dis mi ssalwi thout pr ejudic e i s not “i mmedi ately curable,” and the questi on presented for appeal—whether Mo negaini s excus ed from hi s duty to e xhaust hi s state court r emedi es—i s ri pe for r eview. See, e.g., S ceife rs v. Trigg, 46 F.3d 701, 702 (7th Cir. 1995) (exerci sing jur i sdi cti on ov er t he petiti oner’ s appeal whi ch argued an inordinate delay excused hi s obli gation to ex haus t state remedies and wh i ch challenged the di stric t court’s dis mi ssalof hi s peti tion for habeas reli ef, wi thout pr ejudic e).No. 13-1748 Page 6

prompt speed when Hughes asked for a r uling and there is n othing to ind i cate he would not have r ecei ved an expediti ous handl i ng of hi s cas e by the Geor gia Supreme Court ”).

Comi ty demands that we give “states the fi rst o pport uni ty t o address and correct alleged violations of a petiti oner’ s federal rights.” Liberman v. Thomas , 505 F.3d 665, 669 (7th Ci r. 2007). As the Supr eme Courtlong ag o ex plained, “in the li ght o f the relat i ons exis tin g, under our system of gov ernment, between the j udi ci al tribu nals of the Uni on and of the St ates, and in recogniti on of the fact thatthe publi c good r equi res that t hose relat i ons be not di sturbed by unnec essary confli ct between courts equally bound to guard and pro tect r i ghts secured by the [C]onsti tution,” a hab eas peti tioner mus t fi rst exhaust hi s state court r emedi es. SKS & Assoc., Inc. v. Dart, 619 F.3d 674, 679 n.4 (7th Ci r. 2010) (qu oting Ex Parte Roya ll , 117 U.S. 241, 251 (1886)). And bec ause “the delay has come to a close, the comi ty concerns underlying the exhausti on requirement compel the federal courts to allow the state liti gation to r un i ts course.” Vreeland, 543 Fed. App. at 742. Accordi ngly, in thi s cas e, Mo negainmus t fi rst g i ve t he Indi ana appellate courts an oppor tuni ty t o pass on the federal consti tutional ques tion. Once Monegain exhaus ts hi s state court remedies, he may tim ely r e-fi le hi s § 2254 peti tion. We AFFI RM.