United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
GLENN SHERMAN SEALS, JR. Petitioner,
JASON BRYANT, Warden, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
T. ERWIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking habeas
relief from a state court conviction. United States District
Judge David Russell has referred this matter to the
undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the
Petition has been promptly examined, and for the reasons set
forth herein, it is recommended that the action be
DISMISSED on filing for failure to exhaust
state court remedies.
April 27, 2017, Petitioner pled guilty for failure to comply
with the sex offender registration act in violation of state
law. (ECF No. 1:1). Petitioner did not seek to withdraw his
plea or seek any other type of state court relief. (ECF No.
1:3). Mr. Seals asserts four grounds for relief
in his habeas petition, and admits that he has not raised any
of these claims in state court. (ECF No. 1:5-11). According
to Mr. Seals, he chose not to seek relief in state court due
to “state corruption” and “concern for his
safety.” (ECF No. 1:7, 9, 12).
courts must review habeas petitions promptly and summarily
dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section
“habeas petitioner is generally required to exhaust
state remedies whether his action is brought under §
2241 or § 2254.” Montez v. McKinna, 208
F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2000). To satisfy the exhaustion
requirement, a state prisoner must fairly present his federal
habeas claims in state court. Fair presentation
“requires that the petitioner raise in state court the
substance of his federal claims . . . includ[ing] not only
the constitutional guarantee at issue, but also the
underlying facts that entitle a petitioner to relief.”
Williams v. Trammell, 782 F.3d 1184, 1209 (10th Cir.
2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “The
prisoner's allegations and supporting evidence must offer
the state courts a fair opportunity to apply controlling
legal principles to the facts bearing upon his constitutional
claim.” Demarest v. Price, 130 F.3d 922, 932
(10th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
“[A]lthough a habeas petitioner will be allowed to
present bits of evidence to a federal court that were not
presented to the state court that first considered his claim,
evidence that places the claims in a significantly different
legal posture must first be presented to the state
admits that he has not fairly presented his habeas claims to
any state court due to “state corruption.”
See supra. Under similar circumstances, the Western
District of Oklahoma has found this excuse to be insufficient
to bypass the exhaustion requirement. See Vernon v.
Slabosky, No. CIV-11-812-C, 2011 WL 4356319, at *2 (W.D.
Okla. Aug. 15, 2011), report and recommendation
adopted, No. CIV-11-812-C, 2011 WL 4356237 (W.D. Okla.
Sept. 16, 2011) (habeas petitioner's ”unsupported,
conclusory, and subjective” belief that that
“corruption and lack of an accountable process”
in the State court system “preclude[d] [him] from
getting a fair appeal threw the state process” was
insufficient to bypass the exhaustion requirement for
petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). Accordingly,
the Court should dismiss the petition based on Mr. Seals'
failure to exhaust his state court remedies.
RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
upon the foregoing analysis, it is recommended that the
Petition be DISMISSED on grounds of
parties are advised of their right to file an objection to
this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court
by February 8, 2018 in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The parties are
further advised that failure to make timely objection to this
Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate
review of both factual and legal issues contained herein.
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir.