Opinion
CV418-280
12-20-2018
ROBERT ALLEN DANENBERG, Petitioner, v. EDWARD PHILBIN, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Robert Allen Danenberg has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging various defects in his state criminal case. Doc. 1. He also seeks leave to file his § 2254 petition in forma pauperis (IFP). Doc. 2. Finding him indigent, the Court GRANTS his IFP motion. Preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases shows, however, that his petition must be dismissed.
Danenberg's state habeas appeal (or perhaps petition for a certificate of probable cause to appeal; his petition is unclear) remains pending before the Georgia Supreme Court (doc. 1 at 4 (citing Case No. S17H0710)). Tired after waiting nearly two years for resolution, he has filed this petition for federal habeas relief instead. Before seeking § 2254 relief here, however, petitioners must "fairly present" their claims to state courts to give them a "full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims." O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) (habeas petitioners must "exhaust[ ] the remedies available in the courts of the State" before seeking federal relief); see also Reedman v. Thomas, 305 F. App'x 544, 546 (11th Cir. 2008) ("Generally, when a petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies, the district court should dismiss the petition without prejudice to allow exhaustion."). Danenberg, by his own admission, has yet to do that. He must fully exhaust his "right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c) (emphasis added). That includes awaiting the Georgia appellate courts' final decision on his appeal.
Exhaustion is not required where "there is an absence of available State corrective process" or "circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The mere passage of time and petitioner's desire for a speedier resolution, however, do not excuse the exhaustion requirement to invoke this Court's jurisdiction. See, e.g., Hughes v. Stafford, 780 F.2d 1580, 1581 (11th Cir. 1986) (despite eight-year delay in adjudication of state habeas petition, exhaustion requirement upheld where state court eventually adjudicated state habeas petition and petitioner had a "viable state procedure available").
Because it "plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief" at this time, the Court "must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner." Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Accordingly, this petition should be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of exhaustion. This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations." Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.
A stay of this case is also not warranted, as petitioner has made no showing of "good cause" for his "failure to exhaust his claims first in the state court." Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). Dismissal without prejudice, of course, means that once Danenberg has his resolution he may return to this Court with a timely-filed petition for review. --------
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F. App'x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
Applying the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards, which are set forth in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (approving sua sponte denial of COA before movant filed a notice of appeal). And, as there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, in forma pauperis status on appeal should likewise be DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
SO ORDERED AND REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 20th day of December, 2018.
/s/ _________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA