United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
W. Thompson United States District Judge.
petitioner, Robert Campbell, is confined at Cheshire
Correctional Institution. He brings this action pro
se for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 challenging his May 2016 convictions for
possession of narcotics with intent to sell. For the reasons
that follow, the petition is dismissed.
October 24, 2014, New Britain police officers arrested the
petitioner on possession of narcotics charges. See
Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus, Ex. C, Doc. No. 1-5 at 2. On
December 18, 2015, a jury in Connecticut Superior Court for
the Judicial District of New Britain found the petitioner
guilty of one count of possession with intent to sell and one
count of possession with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a
school. See id., Doc. No. 1 at 2; State v.
Campbell, Docket No. H15N-CR14-0275324-S (Conn. Super.
Ct. Dec. 18, 2015). On May 6, 2016, a judge sentenced the
petitioner to twelve years of imprisonment followed by five
years of special parole on the first count and three years of
imprisonment on the second count. See id.
petitioner claims that he filed a sentence review application
that remains pending. He has not yet filed an appeal of his
conviction. See Pet. Writ Habeas Corpus, Doc. No. 1
prerequisite to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 is the exhaustion of available state remedies. See
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999); 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). The exhaustion requirement seeks
to promote considerations of comity between the federal and
state judicial systems. See Coleman v. Thompson; 501
U.S. 722, 731 (1991).
satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must present
the essential factual and legal bases of his federal claim to
each appropriate state court, including the highest state
court capable of reviewing it, in order to give state courts
a full and fair “opportunity to pass upon and correct
alleged violations of its prisoners' federal
rights.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365
(1995) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). A federal claim has been “fairly present[ed]
in each appropriate state court, including a state supreme
court with powers of discretionary review, ” if it
“alert[s] that court to the federal nature of the
claim.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29
(2004) (internal parentheses and quotation marks omitted). A
petitioner “does not fairly present a claim to a state
court if that court must read beyond a petition or a brief .
. . that does not alert it to the presence of a federal claim
in order to find material . . . that does so.”
Id. at 32.
to exhaust may be excused only where “there is no
opportunity to obtain redress in state court or if the
corrective process is so clearly deficient to render futile
any effort to obtain relief.” Duckworth v.
Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981) (per curiam). A petitioner
cannot, however, simply wait until appellate remedies no
longer are available and argue that the claim is exhausted.
See Galdamez v. Keane, 394 F.3d 68, 73-74 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1025 (2005).
petitioner raises four grounds for relief. See Pet.
Writ of Habeas Corpus at 9, 11, 13 and 15. He states that he
did not exhaust his remedies as to any claim because the
state court in which he was convicted “dishonored
commercial agreements and federal and constitutional
violations.” See Id. This explanation does not
suggest that there are no available opportunities to obtain
relief in state court or that the available remedies would be
ineffective to protect the petitioner's rights.
See 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(B). Nor does the
explanation constitute a viable excuse relieving the
petitioner from exhausting his remedies in state court.
Because the petitioner has not exhausted his available state
court remedies as to any claim, the petition is being
dismissed without prejudice.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No.
1] is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to exhaust state court
remedies. The petitioner may re-file his federal
habeas petition after he has exhausted his state court
court concludes that jurists of reason would not find it
debatable that petitioner failed to exhaust his state court
remedies with respect to the grounds in the petition. Thus, a
certificate of appealability will not issue. See Slack v.
McDaniel,529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (holding that, when
the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural
grounds, a certificate of appealability ...