Court Opinion

ID: 9939614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-10 21:00:29.677737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:32.057809
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6858      Doc: 17         Filed: 02/09/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6858

        BENJAMIN FORREST CARTER,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00036-LO-JFA)

        Submitted: January 26, 2024                                       Decided: February 9, 2024

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Benjamin Forrest Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6858         Doc: 17      Filed: 02/09/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Benjamin Forrest Carter appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without

        prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies and

        denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. In his § 2254 petition, Carter presented exhausted

        and unexhausted claims. The Supreme Court has “held that ‘mixed’ habeas petitions—

        containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims—cannot be adjudicated.” Jones v.

        Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 221 (2007) (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982)). “[A

        district] court presented with a mixed habeas petition ‘should allow the petitioner to delete

        the unexhausted claims and to proceed with the exhausted claims’” Id. at 222 (quoting

        Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005)).

               After Respondent moved to dismiss the § 2254 petition, Carter filed a declaration

        waiving the unexhausted ineffective assistance of counsel claims so that his exhausted

        claims could proceed. However, the court appears to have misconstrued Carter’s filing,

        finding that it indicated he did not want to waive his unexhausted claims. In light of

        Carter’s pro se status and his repeated assertions that he wished to proceed only on the

        exhausted claims, we vacate the district court’s orders and remand for further proceedings

        on the exhausted claims. We deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary. See

        Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009).

               We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                     VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                      2