United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
DENISE L. HOLMAN, Petitioner,
FELIX VINCENZ, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on petitioner Denise L.
Holman's response to the Court's August 27, 2019
order to show cause. (Docket No. 11). The Court had ordered
petitioner to show cause why her 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition should not be dismissed for untimeliness and for
failure to exhaust state remedies. Having carefully reviewed
petitioner's response, and for the reasons discussed
below, the Court must dismiss this action as time-barred
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 and because petitioner has
failed to demonstrate exhaustion.
March 9, 2010, the State of Missouri filed an information
charging petitioner with the Class C felony of assault in the
second degree. State of Missouri v. Holman, No.
10MR-CR00099-01 (10th Cir., Marion
County). On August 2, 2010, petitioner withdrew her
plea of not guilty and entered a plea of not guilty by reason
of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. As
such, the circuit court acquitted her of the charge of
assault in the second degree. The circuit court also
committed petitioner indefinitely to the Department of Mental
Health. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal.
filed a notice of intent to petition for release on November
20, 2015. On December 15, 2015, an attorney for the
Department of Mental Health filed a motion to dismiss and an
objection to petitioner's application for unconditional
release. There is no indication that the circuit court ruled
upon the petition for release or the subsequent motion, as
the next docket entries are for correspondence filed in
January and February 2018. The Court was unable to find any
indication that petitioner filed an appeal with the Missouri
Court of Appeals.
filed the instant action on June 19, 2019, by placing it in
her institution's mailing system. The Court directed
petitioner to file an amended petition on a Court form on
July 2, 2019. (Docket No. 4). Petitioner complied with this
amended petition contained four grounds for relief. First,
petitioner alleged that documents were omitted from State
of Missouri v. Holman, No. 10MR-CR00099-01
(10th Cir., Marion County), and thus, her not
guilty by reason of mental defect plea was invalid. (Docket
No. 9 at 3). Second, petitioner asserted that due process was
not upheld because when she requested her case file from the
circuit clerk's office, she was told that there were no
transcripts. (Docket No. 9 at 8). Third, petitioner claimed
that a 2017 elopement charge from Audrain County was invalid
because she was unlawfully imprisoned. (Docket No. 9 at 5).
Finally, petitioner alleged that her psychiatric condition
was not assessed at the time of her not guilty by reason of
mental defect plea. (Docket No. 9 at 9).
August 27, 2019, the Court directed petitioner to show cause
why her § 2254 petition should not be dismissed as
untimely and for failure to exhaust state remedies. (Docket
No. 10). The Court noted that to the extent petitioner was
challenging the original August 2, 2010 order committing her
to the Department of Mental Health, her petition appeared
time-barred. The Court further noted that to the extent
petitioner was seeking conditional or unconditional release
from civil commitment, she had not demonstrated that she had
exhausted her state remedies before filing in federal court.
filed a written response to the Court's show cause order
on September 3, 2019, by placing it into her
institution's mail system.
response, petitioner states that at the time she should have
filed her writ of habeas corpus, she was without counsel.
(Docket No. 11 at 1). She asserts that habeas "is the
only viable means by which the lawfulness of a confinement as
a result of the NGRI defense can be challenged."
Petitioner also states that Mo. S.Ct. R. 91.06 determines
timeliness in this matter. (Docket No. 11 at 2). She further
claims "[t]here is no time constraint imposed on the
filing of [a] writ of habeas corpus." (Docket No. 11 at
exhaustion, petitioner explains that she had no legal
guidance and no financial means to obtain "reputable
counsel." (Docket No. 11 at 2). Petitioner also states
that she was ignorant of legal remedies and had no resources
by which to become informed. Despite this, she asserts that
she "did seek remedy at [the] state level through
correspondence filed" with the state court. (Docket No.
11 at 4).
response to the Court also notes that she attempted to obtain
counsel. (Docket No. 11 at 3). However, after paying a
retainer, petitioner claims her attorney cashed her check but
rendered no services.
petitioner claims she attempted to file a state habeas
petition with the wrong form. (Docket No. 11 at 4). This
petition was filed directly with the Missouri Court of
Appeals, which returned the filing to her because it was
captioned as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
(Docket No. 11 at 29). Petitioner states that the appellate
court could have delivered ...