Summary
This United States District Court order addresses a pro se habeas petition challenging the computation of the petitioner's federal and state prison sentences. The court notes that while the respondent argues the claim is not cognizable because it relies solely on state law, the court raises sua sponte the threshold issue of whether the petitioner exhausted available state judicial remedies. The court grants the petitioner until August 8, 2025, to file a brief explaining why the petition should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a federal habeas petitioner must exhaust available state judicial remedies before seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254(b).
Key quotations
“The exhaustion of state remedies is an express requirement of federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(b).”
“The Court would like to hear from McHenry on the exhaustion question.”
Factual background
McHenry was sentenced to a 165‑month federal term and a 276‑month state term that run consecutively to each other. He challenged the computation of his state sentence and later sought federal habeas relief, arguing the federal sentence should be coordinated with the state sentence.
Procedural history
McHenry pleaded guilty to federal and state offenses, received concurrent and consecutive sentences, filed administrative grievances in Arkansas, and then filed a federal habeas petition. The court denied his motion for clarification and now requires briefing on whether he exhausted state judicial remedies.
Remand instructions
Petitioner is ordered to file a short brief on or before August 8, 2025 addressing why the case should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies.