Opinion
3:22-cv-200-SLG
01-03-2023
BRION MARQUIS BROWN, Petitioner, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Respondent.[1]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
SHARON L. GLEASON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On September 9, 2022, Brion Marquis Brown, a self-represented prisoner, filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. The Court takes judicial notice of Mr. Brown's underlying criminal conviction in State of Alaska v. Brion Marquis Brown, Case No. 3KN-18-01552CR and his post-conviction proceedings, In the Matter of Brion Marquis Brown v. State of Alaska, Case No. 3KN-21-00178CI.
Judicial notice is the “court's acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party's proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court's power to accept such a fact.” BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed.R.Evid. 201.
The Court acknowledges additional criminal cases involving Mr. Brown. However, this petition and the post-conviction proceedings listed above both concern the same underlying conviction in Case No. 3KN-18-01552CR.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
A court must “promptly examine” a habeas petition. “If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition.” Upon screening, it plainly appears that Mr. Brown is not entitled to habeas relief pursuant to Section 2254 at this time, and his petition must be dismissed.
Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
Id.
DISCUSSION
Federal district courts may review the judgment of a state court only on the ground that the Petitioner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or the laws or treaties of the United States.” As discussed below, the Court dismisses the Petition without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to exhaust state court remedies.
I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Mr. Brown alleges on or around January 2020,Superior Court Judge Jennifer Wells ordered him to complete “anger management treatment” and undergo a mental health evaluation to further decide proper treatment for mental health concerns. Additionally, he alleges that Judge Wells ordered up to 12 months of residential treatment. He alleges that he is currently incarcerated and claims that Spring Creek Correctional Center is wrongfully denying him housing in a mental health module. Mr. Brown seeks his immediate release with instructions to complete treatment or anger management within a year of release.
Docket 1 at 1. The Court takes judicial notice that in Alaska vs. Brown, Brion, Case No. 3KN-18-01552CR, Mr. Brown was found guilty of two counts of assaultt after a jury trial. Mr. Brown states that Judge Wells sentenced him to 60 months with 32 months suspended on each count. Docket 5 at 1.
Docket 1 at 5.
Docket 1 at 7.
Docket 5 at 1.
Docket 1 at 8; see also Docket 5 at 1.
Docket 1 at 15.
While Mr. Brown seeks early release, the Petition fails to identify any federal constitutional violation that might warrant his release from state custody. Hence, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.
Although a district court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court declines to do so here, as the Court notes that Mr. Brown is already pursing a Section 1983 action against Mental Health Clinician Tiffany Becker, who works for the Alaska Department of Corrections.
See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971).
Brown v. Becker, Case No. 3:22-cv-00237-SLG.
II. Exhaustion of State Court Remedies
A prisoner that is in custody based on a state court conviction may not pursue a Section 2254 petition prior to exhausting his state court remedies.Exhaustion of state remedies requires the petitioner to fairly present the federal constitutional claims to the state courts in order to give the state the opportunity to pass upon and correct any alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights. To satisfy the “fairly present” requirement, a petitioner must present his federal claim to “each appropriate court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review)” so that the each state court is alerted to the federal nature of the claim.
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curium).
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (relying on Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66.).
In Alaska, this means that federal constitutional claims must first be presented to the Alaska Superior Court. If the petitioner disagrees with that result, the claim must then be presented to the Alaska Court of Appeals, and if the petitioner disagrees with that result, the claim must then be raised in a petition for hearing to the Alaska Supreme Court. This process also applies to postconviction proceedings by the Alaska Superior Court and review of any postconviction decision by the Alaska Court of Appeals and the Alaska Supreme Court.
See O'Sullivan v. Boerkel, 526 U.S. 828, 845. In Alaska, a criminal defendant may request discretionary review by the Alaska Supreme Court. See Alaska Statutes §§ 22.05.010, 22.07.020, and 22.07.030; Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 215, 301, and 302.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c); see also O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 844-45. See generally Alaska R. Crim. P. 35.1.
By Mr. Brown's own admissions, he has not exhausted his state court remedies. While he did appeal Case No. 3KN-18-01552CR to the Court of Appeals, the appeal was dismissed on June 26, 2020, after Mr. Brown filed a Motion to Dismiss. The case did not proceed to the Alaska Supreme Court. Mr. Brown did file for Post-Conviction Relief in the Superior Court, but he did not appeal to the Alaska Court of Appeals or the Alaska Supreme Court. Because Mr. Brown has not exhausted his state court remedies, his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot proceed at this time in this Court.
Docket 1.
See Brown, Brion v. State of Alaska, Case No. A-13599.
In the Matter of: Brown, Brion vs. State of Alaska, Case No. 3KN-21-00178CI.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.
28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (certificate of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).