United States District Court, D. Connecticut
TYRONE D. CAROLINA, Petitioner,
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
R. UNDERHILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
D. Carolina-currently confined at the Corrigan-Radgowski
Correctional Institution in Uncasville, Connecticut-filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus on May 8, 2017,
challenging his 2010 state court convictions pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
September 13, 2010, a jury convicted Carolina of two counts
of risk of injury to a child in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 53-21(a)(2),  two counts of risk of injury to a child in
violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-21(a)(1),
one count of tampering with a witness in violation of Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 53a-151. See State v. Carolina, 143
Conn.App. 438, 440 (2013). On November 9, 2010, the Superior
Court sentenced Carolina to a total of twenty years in
prison, suspended after twelve years, followed by twenty
years of probation. See Id. at 441.
18, 2013, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed
Carolina's conviction. See Id. On September 12,
2013, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification.
State v. Carolina, 310 Conn. 904 (2013).
filed an application for sentence review with the Sentence
Review Division of the Connecticut Superior Court. On
February 28, 2012, the Sentence Review Division affirmed
Carolina's sentence. State v. Carolina, 2012 WL
953688 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2012).
November 21, 2013, Carolina petitioned the Superior Court for
a writ of habeas corpus. On July 26, 2016, the Superior Court
denied the petition. See Carolina v. Warden, 2016 WL
4507141 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 26, 2016). Carolina appealed
on November 28, 2016. See Doc. No. 131.00,
Carolina v. Warden, No. TSR-CV14-4005888-S (Conn.
8, 2017, Carolina initiated the instant federal petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Carolina's petition-which was not filed on a court form-
consisted of a four-page handwritten petition followed by 240
pages of exhibits. Because Carolina's petition complied
neither with Local Rule 8(b)'s requirement that the
petition be filed on a court form, nor with the requirement
of Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States that a “petition . . . specify all
grounds for relief available to the petitioner, ” on
October 16, 2017, I ordered Carolina to file an amended
petition for writ of habeas corpus. Order, Doc. No. 7, at 1.
I instructed Carolina to “us[e] the court's 28
U.S.C. § 2254 form” and to “answer all
questions on the habeas petition form, include the ground or
grounds on which he s[ought] to proceed . . ., and indicated
whether he has exhausted each ground by raising it on direct
appeal or in a collateral proceeding.” Id. at
1-2. “If Carolina cho[se] not to file an amended
petition within the time specified, ” I warned,
“then I w[ould] dismiss the case without further
notice.” Id. at 2.
November 1, 2017, Carolina filed a response to my order in
which he stated that he “still had [two] more courts to
exhaust, ” because he had not received a decision on
his state habeas petition from the Appellate Court or the
Connecticut Supreme Court. See Mot. Stay, Doc. No.
8, at 1. He asked me to stay this case pending exhaustion of
his state remedies.
than stay the case, in the interest of efficiently managing
my docket, I will administratively close the case without
prejudice. Carolina may move to reopen after he exhausts his
claims in state court. The dismissal without prejudice will
have the same effect, for purposes of the one-year statute of
limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), as
imposing a stay. See Fine v. Erfe, 2017 WL 1362682,
at *4 (D. Conn. Apr. 11, 2017) (dismissing case without
prejudice to reopening after petitioner exhausted state court
remedies, rather than staying case).
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. No. Doc. No. 1, is
DISMISSED without prejudice. Carolina may
move to reopen the case no more than 30 days
after he fully exhausts his available state court remedies
with respect to all grounds he seeks to raise in this action.
The motion to reopen must be accompanied by an amended
petition for writ of habeas corpus. Carolina must include in
that petition all grounds on which he seeks relief, and shall
attach copies of any state court decisions documenting the
exhaustion of those grounds. I remind Carolina that any
amended petition must comply with Local Rule 8(b) and Rule
2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts.
the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural
grounds without reaching the prisoner's underlying
constitutional claim, a [certificate of appealability] should
issue when the prisoner shows, at least, . . . that jurists
of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, I conclude
that reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that
Carolina has, as yet, failed to exhaust his state court
remedies. Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not
Clerk shall enter judgment ...