United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on review of petitioner Edison
Hester's response to the Court's September 24, 2018
order to show cause. (Docket No. 11). The Court had ordered
petitioner to show cause why his petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should not be
dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Having
reviewed petitioner's response, and for the reasons
discussed below, the Court must dismiss this action for lack
November 5, 2010, petitioner was charged with nine counts of
burglary in the second degree, four counts of theft/stealing
of $500 or more, two counts of theft/stealing of less than
$500, one count of theft of a motor vehicle, one count of
property damage in the first degree, and two counts of
property damage in the second degree. State v.
Hester, No. 1022-CR05232-01 (22ndCir., St.
Louis City). Citing concerns about petitioner's
fitness to proceed in his criminal case, either pro se or
with the assistance of counsel, the circuit court ordered
that petitioner undergo a mental evaluation. On May 29, 2014,
the circuit court found petitioner permanently incompetent
and suspended proceedings. Petitioner did not file a direct
appeal from this determination. Furthermore, there is no
indication that petitioner has filed any other proceedings in
the State of Missouri regarding his confinement.
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 on May 29, 2018, by placing it in the
prison mail system. On September 24, 2018, the Court ordered
petitioner to show cause why his petition should not be
dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
(Docket No. 11). In doing so, the Court noted that it did not
appear that petitioner had applied for either conditional or
unconditional release under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 552.040.
Petitioner was given twenty-one days in which to show cause
why his action should not be dismissed. The Court advised
petitioner that failure to comply would result in the
dismissal of his action without prejudice.
subsequently filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal. (Docket No. 17). He also sought a
certificate of appealability. The Court denied
petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability
on January 2, 2019. (Docket No. 18). However, the Court
granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
(Docket No. 20). Nevertheless, there is no indication that
petitioner ever filed an appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
March 4, 2019, petitioner filed an affidavit of criminal
complaints and an affidavit of reservation of rights. (Docket
No. 22). The Court has construed this document as
petitioner's response to the Court's order to show
Show Cause Response
Petitioner's response consists of three separate
documents, each titled “Verified Criminal Complaint and
Affidavit of Facts.” (Docket No. 22 at 2, 6, 10). These
affidavits accuse Prosecutor Timothy Boyer, Department of
Mental Health Attorney Denise Thomas, and Biggs Unit Director
Russel Detrempe of violating his rights because of a mental
health detainer that requires him to return to the Fulton
State Hospital following the end of his prison sentence.
Along with each affidavit is a document titled
“Muniment/Droit, ” in which petitioner asserts
that the government has been usurped, resulting in him being
kidnapped and “held for a ransom.” (Docket No. 22
at 4, 8, 12). Petitioner has also included an
“International Proclamation” from the Moorish
National Republic. (Docket No. 22 at 16).
Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his commitment
to a mental health facility. He was ordered to show cause why
his petition should not be summarily dismissed for failure to
exhaust his state remedies. Petitioner initially indicated
that he was going to file an interlocutory appeal,
challenging the Court's earlier determinations. No.
appeal was filed. Eventually, petitioner filed a document
with the Court that has been construed as his response. For
the reasons discussed below, petitioner's response does
not demonstrate that he has exhausted his state remedies.
Therefore, the petition must be dismissed.
is elementary that a § 2254 petitioner must exhaust
available state remedies before he is entitled to relief in
federal court.” White v. Wyrick, 651 F.2d 597,
598 (8th Cir. 1981). See also 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(b)(1)(A). The exhaustion requirement:
implicates consideration of…whether the petitioner has
exhausted all remedies available in the courts of the state
at the time the federal habeas corpus petitions is filed, as
well as whether he has preserved his claims for federal
habeas corpus review by ...