Boyd v. South Carolina, State of, 1:11-cv-02981

Boyd, a South Carolina state prisoner, filed a pro se motion in 2011 claiming speedy-trial violations, initially construed as a §2241 petition (First Habeas Action).
Clerk errors led to misfiling: a completed §2254 form was docketed as a new civil action (Second Habeas Action) instead of an amended petition in the first action.
The court dismissed the Second Habeas Action for improper form; the First Habeas Action was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
The Fourth Circuit ordered a limited remand and directed the district court to treat the petition as an amended petition in the First Habeas Action, noting state-court convictions on December 14, 2011.
Petitioner was indicted for kidnapping and armed robbery in 2011; conviction and sentencing occurred in December 2011, after the initial habeas filings.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the Second Habeas Action as duplicative and converting the First Habeas Action to a §2254 petition, then dismissing for failure to exhaust to allow potential appellate review by the Fourth Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Amended Petition should be treated as §2254.	Boyd should proceed under §2241 or properly filed §2254.	Amendment and conversion to §2254 is appropriate due to state-court convictions.	Amended petition should be treated as a §2254 petition.
Whether §2254 is the exclusive vehicle for state prisoners challenging state judgments.	Section 2241 could be available as an alternative path.	Majority view supports §2254 as exclusive for state-court judgments.	§2254 is the exclusive vehicle for state-prisoner challenges to state judgments.
Whether Boyd exhausted state-court remedies.	Exhaustion was alleged or implied; direct/ post-conviction avenues exist.	Petitioner admitted not exhausting grounds in direct or post-conviction proceedings.	Petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies.
Whether the Second Habeas Action is duplicative of the First.	Second action arises from misfiling, not new claims.	Duplicative action should be dismissed.	Second Habeas Action is duplicative and should be dismissed.
Appropriate disposition and remand.	Disposition should allow further review by the Fourth Circuit.	Dismissal without prejudice and conversion to §2254 with remand is proper.	Dismissal without prejudice and conversion with remand recommended.

White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) (§2254 is exclusive vehicle for state prisoners in custody under state judgment (by majority view))
Beard v. Green, 523 U.S. 371 (1998) (exhaustion rule for state-court claims in habeas)
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (exhaustion requirements under § 2254/2241)
Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 2001) (state-court custody requires §2254 relief framework)
Crouch v. Norris, 251 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2001) (§2254 is the proper vehicle for state-court custody challenges)
Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2000) (reiterates exclusive vehicle for state-court custody challenges)