Opinion
3:23-cv-00182-MR
01-11-2024
ROCKY J. BRYANT, Petitioner, v. PETER BUCHHOLTZ, Commissioner of Prisons, et al. Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed on March 23, 2023 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Rocky J. Bryant (“the Petitioner”). [Doc. 1]. Also before the Court is the Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to Pay Filing Fee. [Doc. 8].
I. BACKGROUND
The Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, presently serving a life sentence for convictions he received on February 15, 1990 in Sampson County, North Carolina. The Petitioner appears to seek review of a disciplinary proceeding that occurred while incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution in Taylorsville, North Carolina, which resulted in the Petitioner being placed into segregated confinement. [Doc. 1].
Information concerning the Petitioner's incarceration and conviction history is taken from the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction website: https://www.dac.nc.gov/dacservices/criminal-offender-searches
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Extension of Time to Pay Filing Fee
The Petitioner moves this Court for an extension time in which to submit payment of the filing fee. [Doc. 8]. However, review of the Clerk of Court docket reflects that the Petitioner submitted the required $5.00 filing fee on May 2, 2023. As such, the Petitioner's request for an extension of time shall be denied as moot.
B. Initial Review of § 2254 Petition
28 U.S.C. § 2254 applies to “a person in custody under a state-court judgment who seeks a determination that the custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Rule 1(a)(1), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A federal habeas petitioner who is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” may seek relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Such claims are limited to allegations that challenge either the fact or duration of the state prisoner's confinement. Sapp v. North Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 2011 WL 5439112, *1 (W.D. N.C. Nov. 9, 2011). A petitioner may only proceed on a claim related to a prison disciplinary proceeding to the extent that the disciplinary conviction increased the duration of the petitioner's custody. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79 (2005).
In reviewing a § 2254 petition, the Court is guided by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which directs the district court to dismiss a petition when it plainly appears from the petition and any exhibits that the petitioner is entitled to no relief. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a Petitioner to specify all the grounds for relief available to him and to state the facts that support each ground for relief. See Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254.
As best as can be discerned from review of the § 2254 petition, the Petitioner appears to allege that he was wrongfully placed into segregated housing following a February 28, 2023 disciplinary infraction for making or attempting to make a false statement about staff. [Doc. 1 at 1]. The Petitioner states that he was convicted of the disciplinary infraction without sufficient evidence presented against him and seeks immediate release from segregation. [Id. at 2-3]. However, the Petitioner fails to state a valid claim of habeas relief. Although the Petitioner seeks to challenge a disciplinary infraction, it is well established that being placed in segregated confinement does not implicate a liberty interest and is not actionable in a federal habeas proceeding. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 486-487 (1995); Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500, 503-505 (4th Cir. 1997); Rios v. Bennett, 2008 WL 2115163, *1 (W.D. N.C. May 19, 2008). Such disciplinary measure does not affect the duration of the Petitioner's confinement. As such, the Petitioner cannot challenge his disciplinary infraction in this § 2254 proceeding.
The § 2254 petition is also vague and conclusory and the Petitioner fails to sufficiently describe his claim. While the Petitioner appears to attempt to raise a due process violation, he fails to plead any sufficient facts to show that his habeas claim is based on the misapplication of federal law, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Although the Petitioner brought this §2254 action as a pro se litigant, he is still required to specify all grounds for relief and state the supporting facts. See Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. Because the petition fails to specify any valid grounds for habeas relief and supporting facts, it is deficient and subject to dismissal.
The § 2254 petition is also procedurally barred due to the Petitioner's failure to exhaust his available state remedies. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a petitioner must exhaust his available state remedies before he may pursue habeas relief in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). In North Carolina, a petitioner may satisfy § 2254's exhaustion requirement by directly appealing his conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals and then petitioning the North Carolina Supreme Court for discretionary review or by filing a state post-conviction proceeding and petitioning the North Carolina Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A-31; N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-1422. This Court may only consider those issues that were fairly presented to the state courts. Williams v. Terry, 2011 WL 4747925, *2 (W.D. N.C. October 7, 2011)(unpublished).
The Petitioner challenges a February 28, 2023 disciplinary infraction and filed his § 2254 habeas petition on March 23, 2023. [Doc. 1 at 1]. He makes no mention of having sought review in state court and provides no information to show that he satisfied the exhaustion requirements. As such, the § 2254 petition is also subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Petitioner is not entitled to relief and the § 2254 petition shall be dismissed.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003)(noting that, in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a prisoner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 474, 484 (2000)(holding that, when relief is denied on procedural grounds, a prisoner must establish both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED.
2. The Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time to Pay Filing Fee is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.