United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
COURTNEY R. LOGAN, Petitioner,
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al., Respondents.
A. Trauger United States District Judge.
pending before the court is a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Courtney
R. Logan, a prisoner incarcerated at the Northwest Tennessee
Correctional Complex in Tiptonville, Tennessee (Doc. No. 1),
as well as the petitioner's motions for discovery and
appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 65) and seeking permission
to supplement record (Doc. No. 70). The respondents have
filed a motion to dismiss the habeas petition. (Doc. No. 72).
Davidson County jury convicted the petitioner of attempted
first-degree murder and employment of a firearm for
involvement in his codefendant's prison escape and
subsequent shooting of a Nashville police officer during a
traffic stop. See State v. Logan, No.
M2014-01687-CCA-R3- CD, 2015 WL 5883187, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Oct. 8, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 8,
2015). The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total
effective sentence of thirty-one years imprisonment.
Id. On direct appeal, the Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments of the trial court in
all respects, except that it remanded for entry of a
corrected judgment showing a conviction for employment of a
firearm during the flight or escape from the attempt to
attempt a dangerous felony in count 3 and either redacting
the word “Violent” and leaving the 100% release
eligibility designation or using the “Special
Conditions” section of the judgment form to specify
that Logan received a sentence of six years at one hundred
percent release eligibility for his conviction under
Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17324(b)(4). Id.
at *17. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied discretionary
Logan' motion for new trial was still pending in
Tennessee, he was transferred to Mississippi, where he was
convicted of five counts of kidnapping, one count of aiding
escape, and one count of felon in possession of a firearm.
See Logan v. State, 192 So.3d 1012, 1015 (Miss. Ct.
App. 2015). For those crimes, he received seven consecutive
sentences of life in prison without the possibility of
parole. Id. The Mississippi Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgments, and the Mississippi Supreme Court
denied discretionary review. Logan v. State, 202
So.3d 1267 (Miss. 2016).
petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in this case in 2013, which the
court dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust
available state court remedies. (See Doc. Nos. 36
& 37). The petitioner later filed a motion to reinstate
his habeas corpus proceedings, claiming to have exhausted.
(Doc. No. 41). The respondents then filed a motion to dismiss
for failure to exhaust (Doc. No. 50) and, on August 9, 2016,
the court granted the motion and dismissed this action a
second time without prejudice to refile once the petitioner
exhausted his state court remedies. (Doc. Nos. 59 and 60).
22, 2019, the petitioner filed a notice of exhaustion, once
again seeking to reopen his federal habeas corpus
proceedings. (Doc. No. 64). On July 24, 2019, the court
ordered the respondents to provide the state court record and
to file a response. (Doc. No. 66). The respondents
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the
petitioner still has not exhausted his state court remedies.
(Doc. No. 72).
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
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 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). It is 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