Bovee v. State of Washington, 2:19-cv-02022

Petitioner Sean Bovee filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a 2019 Skagit County Superior Court judgment; he is confined at Coyote Ridge Corrections Center.
The petition had not been served on Respondent when the court reviewed the matter.
Bovee admits he has not presented the federal claims to Washington state courts, apparently because he contends the state lacks jurisdiction to decide those constitutional issues.
The petition indicates Bovee filed a direct appeal of his conviction that remains pending; the petition does not identify whether the federal claims were raised on that appeal.
The magistrate judge concluded the petition is facially unexhausted and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
The court also recommended denial of a certificate of appealability (COA), finding Bovee failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bovee exhausted state remedies before filing a § 2254 petition	Bovee refused to present claims to state courts because he believes Washington lacks jurisdiction to decide them	Bovee has not "fairly presented" his federal claims to state courts as required; exhaustion is mandatory	Petition dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies
Whether federal courts must defer to state courts first (exhaustion/comity)	Bovee argues jurisdictional defect excuses exhaustion	Federal exhaustion doctrine requires state courts be given initial opportunity to correct alleged federal rights violations	Court applied exhaustion doctrine and dismissed petition
Whether pending direct appeal affects exhaustion	Bovee notes a direct appeal is pending	Pending appeal does not substitute for presenting the specific federal claims to state courts if not raised there	Pending appeal presumed not to have raised the federal habeas claims; exhaustion lacking
Whether a Certificate of Appealability should issue	Bovee may seek to appeal the dismissal	COA issues only if petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right (reasonable jurists could disagree)	COA denied; petitioner did not meet the standard

Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (exhaustion/comity: state courts get the initial opportunity to correct alleged federal violations)
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (petitioner must "fairly present" federal claims to state courts)
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995) (clarifies fair presentation requirement)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion includes opportunity to seek discretionary review in state supreme court)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)