Opinion
Civil Action No. 2: 20-cv-0921
11-03-2020
CHAZ ANTHONY HOOPER, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, WESTMORELAND COUNTY PRISON; and WESTMORELAND COUNTY D.A. OFFICE, Respondents.
United States District Judge Nora Barry Fischer
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
Presently before the Court is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by Chaz Anthony Hooper ("Petitioner"), a state pretrial detainee being detained at the Westmoreland County Prison. For the following reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies and that, to the extent one is needed, a certificate of appealability be denied.
II. REPORT
Petitioner is currently in custody at the Westmoreland County Prison awaiting trial by jury on charges of strangulation and simple assault that were filed on February 24, 2020, at case number CP-65-CR-0001098-2020. He has also been ordered detained for violations of probation and parole at case numbers CP-65-CR-3151-2019 and CP-65-CR-3155-2019 as a result of the pending charges filed at CP-65-CR-0001098-2020. Petitioner alleges that he is being illegally detained, "the process is fundamentally flaw[ed]," and "no remedy for [a] due process [violation exists]." Pet. at 6, 7.
A petitioner must exhaust state remedies by presenting his federal constitutional claims to each level of the state courts empowered to hear those claims, either on direct appeal or in collateral post-conviction proceedings. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999). In Pennsylvania, this requirement generally means that a petitioner in a non-capital case must have presented every federal constitutional claim raised in his habeas petition to the Common Pleas Court and then to the Superior Court either on direct or PCRA appeal. See, e.g., Lambert, 387 F.3d at 233-34. Once a petitioner's federal claims have been fairly presented to the state courts and those proceedings conclude, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied.
The exhaustion requirement is "grounded in principles of comity; in a federal system, the States should have the first opportunity to address and correct alleged violations of state prisoner's federal rights." Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). Federal court intervention would be premature whenever a state procedure still affords a petitioner with an opportunity to obtain relief from the judgment of sentence that he seeks to attack in a federal habeas proceeding. See, e.g., Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 (3d Cir. 1998) ("The exhaustion requirement does not foreclose federal relief, but merely postpones it."). The general rule is that a district court should dismiss a federal habeas petition if the petitioner is exhausting his available state remedies. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982).
Respondents argue that because Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies this petition should be dismissed. (ECF No. 21). The Court agrees with Respondents and therefore, recommends that the instant federal habeas petition be dismissed. The dismissal should be without prejudice to Petitioner commencing another federal habeas case in the event that he does not receive the relief he seeks upon the completion of any relevant litigation before the state courts. To the extent one is needed, a Certificate of Appealability should be denied as jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable.
III. CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner commencing another federal habeas case in the event that he does not receive the relief he seeks upon the completion of any relevant litigation before the state courts. To the extent one is needed, a Certificate of Appealability should be denied as jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable.
Any party is permitted to file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Petitioner, because he is a non-electronically registered party, must file objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation by November 20, 2020, and Respondents, because they are electronically registered parties, must file objections, if any, by November 17, 2020. The parties are cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe "will waive the right to appeal." Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011).
s/ Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
Chief United States Magistrate Judge Dated: November 3, 2020 cc: CHAZ ANTHONY HOOPER
701-2020
3000 South Grande Boulevard
Greensburg, PA 15601
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
John J. Petrush , Jr.
Westmoreland County District Attorney's Office
(via ECF electronic notification)