Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20160617_0001986.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-02-24 17:54:12
Document Index: 507587556

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 1915', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2241', '§ 2254', '§ 2241', '§ 2241']

Dominic Hicks, Petitioner,
Dominic Hicks, Petitioner, Pro Se.
A Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2254 was submitted to the court by a state prison inmate appearing pro se. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in such pro se cases and to submit findings and recommendations to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 1915(e), 1915A (as soon as possible after docketing, district courts should review prisoner cases to determine whether they are subject to summary dismissal).
Dominic Hicks ("Petitioner") is a North Carolina state prison inmate seeking to challenge a simple assault conviction and sentence entered against him in abstentia on July 30, 2015 by the Municipal Court of Lyman, South Carolina, which is a city in Spartanburg County. Pet. 1, ECF No. 1. Petitioner has submitted a Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2254 asking this court to vacate his conviction and sentence based on allegations that his federal constitutional rights were violated by the trial held in his absence. ECF No. 1-1 at 1-2. Petitioner acknowledges that he has not presented his current claim to any state court before submitting the Â§ 2254 Petition now under review. ECF No. 1 at 2-4. Petitioner indicates he did not first present his claim to a state court because he attempted to appeal the conviction and sentence to the Spartanburg County Court of General Sessions but was told that the court did not have jurisdiction. Id. at 2. There is no indication that Petitioner made any further attempts to appeal to a different court or that he filed a state post-conviction relief ("PCR") application in any state court before filing the Petition now under review.
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review was made of the pro se Petition filed in this case. The review was conducted pursuant to the procedural provisions of 28 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 1915, 1915A, and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995); Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1983); Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948 (4th Cir. 1979).
Furthermore, this court is charged with screening Petitioner's lawsuit to determine if "it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; see Rule 1(b) of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (a district court may apply these rules to a habeas corpus petition not filed pursuant to Â§ 2254). Following the required initial review, it is recommended that the Petition submitted in this case be summarily dismissed.
The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in this case should be dismissed because Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies. With respect to his Lyman Municipal Court conviction and sentence, Petitioner's sole federal remedies are a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2254 and possibly, but less commonly, a writ habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2241, either of which can be sought only after Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2254(b); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 490-91 (1973) (exhaustion also required under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2241); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-76 (1971); Moore v. De Young, 515 F.2d 437, 442-43 (3d Cir. 1975) (exhaustion required under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2241). Exhaustion "preserves the respective roles of state and federal governments and avoids unnecessary collisions between sovereign powers. States are allowed to vindicate their interest in prompt and orderly administration of justice, while the federal judiciary upholds its responsibility to prevent the exercise of illegitimate authority." Fain v. Duff, 488 F.2d 218, 224 (5th Cir. 1973) (citing Braden ). Such considerations should not be dispensed with lightly. Section 2254's exhaustion requirement provides: