Opinion
C/A No. 0:06-2329-CMC-BM.
August 23, 2006
ORDER
This order is entered to clarify the reasons for the court's denial of Petitioner's motion to stay filed with his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings Under Seal v. United States, 947 F.2d 1188 (1991).
"In the interest of giving state courts the first opportunity to consider alleged constitutional errors occurring in a defendant's state trial and sentencing, a § 2254 petitioner is required to `exhaust' all state court remedies before a federal district court can entertain his claims." Matthews v. Evatt, 105 F.3d 907, 910 (4th Cir. 1997) ( citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) (c)). The Fourth Circuit has held that South Carolina's Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, which is currently codified at South Carolina Code Annotated § 17-27-10 et seq., is a viable state-court remedy. See Miller v. Harvey, 566 F.2d 879, 880-81 (4th Cir. 1977); Patterson v. Leeke, 556 F.2d 1168, 1170-73 n. 1 (4th Cir. 1977).
A review of the petition indicates that Petitioner has not pursued a post-conviction relief action. Because Petitioner has a viable state court remedy which has not been fully utilized, this court will not maintain this matter on its docket while Petitioner exhausts his state remedies. Therefore, a motion to stay is inappropriate at this juncture and is, therefore, denied. The Clerk is directed to forthwith transmit this order to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.