United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
JAMES C. SULLIVAN, No. 454328, Petitioner,
GRADY PERRY, Respondent.
H. Sharp Chief United States District Judge.
C. Sullivan, an inmate of the Hardeman County Correctional
Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the legality of his
confinement under a May 11, 2010 judgment entered against him
by the Williamson County Criminal Court in Williamson County,
Tennessee, for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,
vandalism, retaliation for past action, and reckless
endangerment. (Docket No. 21 at p. 1).
petitioner originally filed his petition in the Western
District of Tennessee. (Docket No. 1). By order entered on
November 7, 2016, recognizing that it is the practice of the
federal district courts in Tennessee that all § 2254
petitions are to be heard in the district in which the
conviction was obtained, the Honorable Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
transferred the petitioner's action to this court.
(Docket No. 13 at p. 2).
order entered on November 14, 2016, the court conducted a
preliminary review of the petition and was unable to
determine from the face of the petition and from the record
at that time whether Sullivan's petition was timely and
exhausted. (Docket No. 15). Therefore, the court ordered the
respondent to respond and specifically to address whether the
petition was timely and whether the petitioner had exhausted
his state court remedies. (Id.) Presently pending
before the court is the respondent's response to the
court's order and to the petition. (Docket No. 20).
motion to dismiss, the respondent asserts that the petitioner
has not fully exhausted his state court remedies and
therefore this action should be dismissed without prejudice
for failure to exhaust. (Docket No. 20). The petitioner has
not responded to the motion to dismiss.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
axiomatic that one may not seek federal habeas
corpus relief until he has exhausted all available state
remedies or demonstrated their inadequacies. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(B); Hannah v. Conley, 49 F.3d 1193, 1196 (6th
Cir. 1995). Any alleged constitutional deprivation must be
asserted through the state appellate process.
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, [the Supreme Court]
conclude[s] that 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.” Id. The burden is
on the petitioner to demonstrate compliance with the
exhaustion requirement or that the state procedure would be
futile. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir.
2254(b)(1) states in pertinent part:
application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall
not be granted unless it appears that
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State; or
(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective
to protect the rights of the applicant.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.
509 (1982). The rules pertaining to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
cases are applicable to requests for habeas corpus
relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § ...