Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mlady v. Smack

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

October 31, 2019

Adam Vincent Mlady, Petitioner,
v.
Al Smack, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge

         The District Court has referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner Adam Vincent Mlday filed his federal habeas Petition (“Petition”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from his state court convictions and sentence. See Dkt. 6. The Court concludes Petitioner failed to properly exhaust his state court remedies as to all grounds raised in the Petition. Because Petitioner's time for pursuing state remedies has expired, Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on all his claims. Therefore, the Court recommends the Petition be dismissed with prejudice.

         BACKGROUND

         Petitioner is in custody under a state court judgment and sentence imposed for his conviction by guilty plea of one count of second-degree burglary-domestic violence. Dkt. 12, Exhibit 4. Petitioner was sentenced to 43-month term. Dkt. 11, Exhibit 4. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.

         On June 11, 2019, Petitioner filed this Petition pursuant to § 2254. Dkts. 1, 6. Petitioner raises four grounds for relief all based on his claim he is unlawfully detained, and the State of Washington does not have jurisdictional authority to decide federal matters. Dkt. 6. On July 26, 2019, Respondent filed the Answer, wherein he argued a state remedy remained available and the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice because Petitioner is not presently time-barred from seeking collateral review in the state courts. Dkt. 11.

         On September 18, 2019, after a review of the Petition, Answer, and state court record, the Court concluded Petitioner's time to file a petition or motion for post-conviction relief had passed since the filing of the Answer and expired on September 6, 2019. Dkt. 13 at 1 (citing RCW § 10.73.090 (no petition or motion for collateral attack may be filed more than one year after the judgment becomes final)). The Court ordered Respondent to supplement his Answer and provide additional information whether a state remedy remained available to Petitioner. Dkt. 13.

         On September 23, 2019, Respondent filed his Supplemental Answer and argues Petitioner did not seek post-conviction collateral relief with the state court. Dkt. 14 at 1-2. Respondent argues Petitioner's claims are now procedurally barred and the Court should dismiss the Petition with prejudice. Dkt. 14 at 2-4. Petitioner did not file a Traverse or a response to the Supplemental Answer. See Dkt.

         DISCUSSION

         Respondent maintains Petitioner failed to exhaust the grounds raised in the Petition and is procedurally barred from federal review. Dkts. 11, 14.

         1. Exhaustion of State Remedies

         “[A] state prisoner must normally exhaust available state judicial remedies before a federal court will entertain his petition for habeas corpus.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). Petitioner's claims will be considered exhausted only after “the state courts [have been afforded] a meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of legal error without interference from the federal judiciary.” Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 257 (1986). “[S]tate 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.” O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).

         A federal habeas petitioner must provide the state courts with a fair opportunity to correct alleged violations of federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985) (petitioner “fairly presented” the claim to the state supreme court even though the state court did not reach the argument on the merits). It is not enough if all the facts necessary to support the federal claim were before the state courts or if a somewhat similar state law claim was made. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66 (citing Picard, 404 U.S. at 275; Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (1982)). Petitioner must include reference to a specific federal constitutional guarantee, as well as a statement of the facts entitling Petitioner to relief. Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162-163 (1996); Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, 403 F.3d 657, 668 (9th Cir. 2005). Petitioner bears the burden of proving he has exhausted available state remedies and retains the burden to prove all facts relevant to the exhaustion requirement. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).

         In the Petition, Petitioner raises four grounds for relief asserting he is unlawfully detained, and the State of Washington does not have jurisdictional authority to decide federal matters. Dkt. 6.

         Petitioner did not raise any of the four grounds in the instant Petition on direct appeal or collateral review. See Dkt. 12. Therefore, Petitioner did not give the state court a full and fair opportunity to determine if a federal constitutional violation occurred when he was convicted of rape. See Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (“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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.