United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. BODENHAUSEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on petitioner Larry Donnell
Wallace's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of
habeas corpus, which the Court has construed as a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Docket No. 1). For the reasons discussed below, the petition
will be summarily dismissed because petitioner has not
exhausted his state remedies.
October 2, 2015, petitioner was indicted on one count of
second-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action,
one count of second-degree assault, and one count of leaving
the scene of an accident. State of Missouri v.
Wallace, No. 1522-CR02952 (22nd Cir., St.
Louis City).Petitioner pleaded guilty to all counts on
June 5, 2017. That same day, he was sentenced to a total of
ten years' imprisonment. The Circuit Judge noted on the
sentencing order that petitioner was to receive credit toward
his sentence from July 21, 2015 to October 1, 2015, before he
was delivered to the City Justice Center. Furthermore,
petitioner was to receive credit against his sentence for all
time served in the City Justice Center. Petitioner did not
file a direct appeal. He filed the instant action on August
14, 2019. (Docket No. 1).
of Petition as Arising Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition currently before the Court is filed on a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 form. As petitioner has already been convicted in
state court, this Court has construed his petition as arising
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This is because a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court “can
only obtain habeas relief through § 2254, no matter how
his pleadings are styled.” Crouch v Norris,
251 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating that
not only was § 2254 an appropriate vehicle for state
prisoner's claims, it was, “as a practical matter,
the only vehicle”).
is an inmate currently incarcerated at the Missouri Eastern
Correctional Center (MECC) in Pacific, Missouri. His petition
contains four grounds for relief. (Docket No. 1 at 6-7). Each
ground pertains to petitioner's contention that he was
not given credit against his sentence for time spent in
custody between July 20, 2015 and November 19, 2015, when he
was being held in Illinois on a Missouri detainer. (Docket
No. 1 at 7).
noted above, petitioner has filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus, alleging that he did not receive the proper
credit against his sentence for time he served in custody
before pleading guilty. For the reasons discussed below,
petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies, and his
petition will be summarily dismissed.
Exhaustion of State Remedies
well established that a petitioner in state custody seeking
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must first exhaust
available state remedies before pursuing federal habeas
relief. Wayne v. Missouri Bd. of Probation &
Parole, 83 F.3d 994, 996 (8th Cir. 1996).
See also White v. Wyrick, 651 F.2d 597, 598
(8th Cir. 1981) (stating that “[i]t is
elementary that a § 2254 petitioner must exhaust
available state remedies before he is entitled to relief in
federal court”). The exhaustion requirement provides
the state an “opportunity to pass upon and correct
alleged violations of its prisoners' federal
rights.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29
(2004). The exhaustion requirement also prevents disruption
of state judicial proceedings. Rose v. Lundy, 455
U.S. 509, 517 (1982).
exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must fairly present his
claim in each appropriate state court. Nash v.
Russell, 807 F.3d 892, 898 (8th Cir. 2015).
See also Wayne, 83 F.3d at 998 (stating that
“[a]ll that is required to satisfy the exhaustion
requirement is that the federal claims be fairly presented to
the state courts in one full round of litigation”).
This requires a petitioner to submit not only the facts, but
also the substance of his federal habeas claim to the state
court. Abdullah v. Groose, 75 F.3d 408, 411
(8th Cir. 1996). Specifically, in order “to
satisfy the ‘fairly presented' requirement, a
petitioner is required to refer to a specific federal
constitutional right, a particular constitutional provision,
a federal constitutional case, or a state case raising a
pertinent federal constitutional issue.” Barrett v.
Acevedo, 169 F.3d 1155, 1161-62 (8th Cir.
1999). “It follows, of course, that once the federal
claim has been fairly presented to the state courts, the
exhaustion requirement is satisfied.” Vasquez v.
Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 257 (1986).
petition, petitioner notes that he filed an IRR with the MECC
records department. (Docket No. 1 at 2). Following that, he
appealed to A.K. Rajput of the Investigating Staff. Next, he
filed an offender grievance with the warden of MECC, Jennifer
Sachse. (Docket No. 1 at 3). Finally, petitioner states that
he filed an offender ...