Summary
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Patrick Taevon Williams’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The court denied Petitioner’s requests for a Rhines stay, emergency release on bond, and related relief, concluding that the petition was not a mixed petition. The court also denied a certificate of appealability.
Holdings
- A § 2254 petition containing no exhausted claims must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
- A petitioner whose § 2254 petition contains no exhausted claims is not entitled to a Rhines stay because the petition is not a mixed petition.
- The AEDPA limitations period is tolled while a properly filed state post-conviction or other collateral-review application is pending.
- A certificate of appealability should be denied because Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right or show that the procedural ruling was debatable among reasonable jurists.
Questions Presented
- Whether the § 2254 petition should be dismissed without prejudice because Petitioner had failed to exhaust state court remedies.
- Whether Petitioner was entitled to a stay and abeyance under Rhines v. Weber despite having no exhausted claims.
- Whether Petitioner was entitled to emergency release on bond.
- Whether a certificate of appealability should issue.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (6)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976)(followed)
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005)(distinguished)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003)(followed)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)(followed)
- Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…