Source: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180418_0001871.DMT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:18:34+00:00

Document:
This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Dylan Lee Monroe Klein's application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254, filed February 20, 2018. Klein is a state prisoner proceeding pro se.
Klein was one of a group of petitioners that joined in filing what they characterized as an “En Masse Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as per Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Doc. 2). The “en masse” petitioners sought to challenge the constitutionality of the criminal charging process utilized against them by the State of Montana. Id. at 19-33.
Klein, and the additional petitioners, were notified that the Court would not allow them to proceed as a group and that separate cases would be opened for each. (Doc. 1 at 2-5). Petitioners were then ordered to respond individually to advise the Court whether or not they wished to proceed and, if so, petitioners were directed to each complete the Court's standard habeas form. Id. at 5-6. Klein did not respond to this Court's order.
Klein has moved this Court to be granted in forma pauperis status. (Doc. 3). Because there is no reason to delay this matter further, Klein's motion will be GRANTED.
In a Supplement to his Petition, Klein asks this Court to dismiss a Partner/Family Member Assault conviction handed down in Montana's Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, in Cause No. ADC-16-196. (Doc. 4 at 1). The argument is premised upon what Klein believes to be a faulty and unconstitutional state criminal charging process utilized in felony prosecutions. Id. Klein contends he was entitled to be prosecuted either following the empaneling of a grand jury or a preliminary probable cause hearing. Id.
But this Court is not able to provide Klein the relief sought. Federal district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, do not serve as appellate tribunals to review errors allegedly committed by state courts. MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 296 (1970)(“lower federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state court decisions”). It would be entirely inappropriate for this Court to review and dismiss the state convictions as suggested by Klein. To the extent that the Supplement (Doc. 4) is construed as a Motion to Dismiss, the motion is DENIED.
Klein filed a direct appeal pending, but he subsequently stipulated to its dismissal. See State v. Klein, DA 17-0304, Or. (Mont. Dec. 5, 2017)(dismissing matter). Thus, it does not appear that Klein has ever presented his present claim to the Montana state courts. Federal courts may not grant a writ of habeas corpus brought by an individual in custody pursuant to a state court judgment unless “the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.” 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(1)(A). The exhaustion requirement is grounded in the principles of comity and gives states the first opportunity to correct alleged violations of a prisoner's federal rights. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991).

References: §2254
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2254
 v.