United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
BOBBY L. MITCHELL, No. 344383, Petitioner
WARDEN MIKE PARRIS, Respondent.
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
L. Mitchell, an inmate of the Northwest Correctional Complex
in Tiptonville, Tennessee, filed a pro se, in forma
pauperis petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenging the revocation of his parole. (Doc. No. 1).
Petitioner does not cite any federal statutes in his
petition. After carefully reviewing the petition, the Court
questioned whether the Petitioner's intent was to file
his petition in state court. Although the Petitioner mailed
his petition to this Court, he includes a case number on his
petition that seems to be linked to a pending state case.
(Doc. No. 1 at 1). The Petitioner also lists “In the
U.S. District Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, For the
20th Judicial District at Nashville” in the
caption of his petition. (Id.) Further, the
Petitioner cites to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-21-101
as the basis for his petition, not to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
or § 2254-both federal statutes. (Id.)
the Court directed the Petitioner to write to the Court and
state whether he intended for his petition to be considered
as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
§ 2241 or § 2254; if so, the Court would review his
petition after receiving his statement. However, if the
Petitioner intended for his petition to be reviewed by a
state court, the Petitioner was directed to so notify the
Court, and the Court would dismiss this action without
prejudice so that the Petitioner could file his petition in
state court. (Doc. No. 8). The Court specifically stated that
it could not file the petition in state court for the
Petitioner. (Id. at 2).
Petitioner has not responded to the Court's Order, and
the Court must now determine how to evaluate the petition.
The Court believes that the Petitioner intended to file a
state petition for writ of habeas corpus and
mistakenly mailed the petition to this Court. However, out of
an abundance of caution and taking into consideration the
Petitioner's pro se status, the Court will
consider whether the Court can offer any relief to the
Petitioner in this Court.
U.S.C. § 2241 allows petitioners to challenge the
execution of their state sentences. Here, because the
Petitioner is not challenging the imposition of a conviction
and/or sentence but rather the execution, § 2241 would
be the more appropriate statute under which to evaluate the
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:
An 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
(B)(I) there is an absence of available State corrective
process; or (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. § 2241. See Rule
1(b), Rules - § 2254 Cases.