Source: http://ga.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20181220_0002993.SGA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 21:12:55
Document Index: 547025132

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

EDWARD PHILBIN, Warden, Respondent.
Robert Allen Danenberg has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging various defects in his state criminal case. Doc. 1. He also seeks leave to file his § 2254 petition in forma pauperis (IFP). Doc. 2. Finding him indigent, the Court GRANTS his IFP motion. Preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases shows, however, that his petition must be dismissed.
Danenberg's state habeas appeal (or perhaps petition for a certificate of probable cause to appeal; his petition is unclear) remains pending before the Georgia Supreme Court (doc. 1 at 4 (citing No. S17H0710)). Tired after waiting nearly two years for resolution, he has filed this petition for federal habeas relief instead.[1] Before seeking § 2254 relief here, however, petitioners must “fairly present” their claims to state courts to give them a “full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims.” O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) (habeas petitioners must “exhaust[ ] the remedies available in the courts of the State” before seeking federal relief); see also Reedman v. Thomas, 305 Fed.Appx. 544, 546 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Generally, when a petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies, the district court should dismiss the petition without prejudice to allow exhaustion.”). Danenberg, by his own admission, has yet to do that. He must fully exhaust his “right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c) (emphasis added). That includes awaiting the Georgia appellate courts' final decision on his appeal.
Because it “plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief” at this time, the Court “must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Accordingly, this petition should be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of exhaustion.[2] This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.
[1] Exhaustion is not required where “there is an absence of available State corrective process” or “circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The mere passage of time and petitioner's desire for a speedier resolution, however, do not excuse the exhaustion requirement to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. See, e.g., Hughes v. Stafford, 780 F.2d 1580, 1581 (11th Cir. 1986) (despite eight-year delay in adjudication of state habeas petition, exhaustion requirement upheld where state court eventually adjudicated state habeas petition and petitioner had a “viable state procedure available”).
[2] A stay of this case is also not warranted, as petitioner has made no showing of &ldquo;good cause&rdquo; for his &ldquo;failure to exhaust his claims first in the state court.&rdquo; Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). Dismissal without prejudice, of course, means that once Danenberg has his resolution he ...