United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. RAU U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Calvin Thomas King filed multiple petitions for a writ of
habeas corpus in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254, including the pleading used to initiate this action.
Another magistrate judge of this District recently concluded
that a substantially similar petition filed by King must be
dismissed on the basis that the claims raised in that
petition have not been fully exhausted in the state courts.
See King v. Minnesota, No. 17-CV-5196 (SRN/TNL), ECF
No. 12 (D. Minn. Mar. 19, 2018). This Court reaches the same
conclusion and recommends dismissal of the habeas corpus
petition without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
federal court cannot entertain a habeas corpus petition filed
by a state prisoner unless the prisoner has exhausted all
available state court remedies for all of his claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). To satisfy the
exhaustion of state court remedies requirement, the prisoner
must show that all of his federal constitutional claims have
been fairly presented to, and decided on the merits by, the
highest available state court. See
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)
(“Because the exhaustion doctrine is designed to give
the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve
federal constitutional claims before those claims are
presented to the federal courts . . . state prisoners must
give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any
constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the
State's established appellate review process.”).
This requirement has been explained by the United States
Supreme Court as follows:
Before seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus, a state
prisoner must exhaust available state remedies, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(1), thereby giving the State the opportunity
to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its
prisoners' federal rights. To provide the State with the
necessary opportunity, the prisoner must fairly present his
claim in each appropriate state court (including a state
supreme court with powers of discretionary review), thereby
alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim.
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (citations
and quotations omitted). “A petitioner meets the fair
presentation requirement if the state court rules on the
merits of his claims, or if he presents his claims in a
manner that entitles him to a ruling on the merits.”
Gentry v. Lansdown, 175 F.3d 1082, 1083 (8th Cir.
basis for King's challenge to his conviction in this
matter is unclear; King states that he is
“challe[n]ging jurisdiction” and also suggests
that the Ex Post Facto Clause of the federal constitution
might somehow be implicated, but King does not flesh out his
claims beyond those cryptic allegations. See
Petition at 5 [ECF No. 1]. Even if his claims were
meritorious, the Minnesota appellate courts remain fully
capable of hearing and granting relief on those claims. King
must therefore afford the appellate courts an opportunity to
hear his habeas corpus claims in the first instance. A review
of the state-court records available to this Court confirms
that King - who pleaded guilty to the offense at issue in
November 2016, was sentenced in July 2017, and did not file a
direct appeal - has not yet presented his claims to the
Minnesota Supreme Court.Indeed, it is not altogether clear that
King has ever challenging his conviction before any state
court. Until King has presented his claims to the Minnesota
Supreme Court in a manner that allows that court to consider
the merits of his claims, he may not seek federal habeas
corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
it is recommended that this matter be dismissed without
prejudice; King may return to federal court and seek habeas
corpus relief after fully exhausting his claims in the state
courts. It is further recommended that King's application
to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] be denied,
because his habeas corpus petition cannot be entertained.
See Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1074 n.3 (8th
Cir. 1996). Finally, King has not identified, and this Court
cannot discern, anything novel, noteworthy or worrisome about
this case that warrants appellate review. It is therefore
recommended that King not be granted a certificate of
appealability in this matter. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1).
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to
exhaust state remedies.
2. The application to proceed in forma pauperis of
petitioner Calvin Thomas King [ECF No. 2] be DENIED.
3. No. certificate of appealability be issued.
Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an
order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not