Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:07-CV-564-TS.
December 7, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
Arthur James Rogers, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge the Maximum Control Complex Disciplinary Hearing Board's (DHB) determination that he was guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of B-236 on February 7, 2005. He was sanctioned with the loss of 100 days earned credit time and demoted to credit class 3. Rogers attempts to raise four grounds in this court, but he did not present any of them during his administrative appeal to the Final Reviewing Authority. "[T]o exhaust a claim, and thus preserve it for collateral review under § 2254, a prisoner must present that legal theory to the . . . Final Reviewing Authority." Moffat v. Broyles, 288 F.3d 978, 982 (7th Cir. 2002).
In paragraph 11, Rogers lists the claims he raised to the Final Reviewing Authority, but he has not listed any of the four claims he attempts to raise in this petition. Additionally, paragraph 13 asks him to explain why he did not previously present his claims, but he neither acknowledges nor explains why they were not presented to the Final Reviewing Authority.
Because Rogers did not exhaust these grounds by presenting them to the Final Reviewing Authority, he may not raise them here for the first time. See Moffat, 288 F.3d at 982. Furthermore, "[I]f 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 and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner." Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 4. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.