Evans v. David Wade Correctional Center
3:14-cv-03285
W.D. La.Jan 26, 2015Background
- Petitioner Eddie Gene Evans, a Louisiana inmate housed in David Wade Correctional Center, filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging parole-revocation proceedings and credit for Wisconsin custody time.
- Evans alleged due-process violations: lack of notice, no preliminary/final revocation hearings, failure to advise rights, no written revocation decision, and delay in revocation. He also sought credit for time served in Wisconsin that allegedly should run concurrent with his Louisiana sentence.
- State post-revocation remedies existed: judicial review under La. R.S. 15:574.11 (district court review in East Baton Rouge Parish, appeal to First Circuit, then LA Supreme Court) and administrative remedies for sentence-credit disputes within the Louisiana DOC.
- Evans previously pursued various state petitions challenging the Parole Board detainer and related matters in the 19th JDC, the First Circuit, and the Louisiana Supreme Court, but the claims litigated there differed from the due-process claims presented in the federal petition; the Court of Appeal noted Evans failed to administratively exhaust the credit claim.
- After the appellate proceedings, Evans filed an administrative grievance at DWCC raising the credit issue; it was denied and his appeal to DOC headquarters was denied in October 2014, but he did not return to state court thereafter.
- Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust available state remedies before filing the federal habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process at parole revocation | Evans: Parole revoked without notice, hearings, rights advisals, or written findings | State: Remedies exist under La. R.S.15:574.11 (judicial review in state courts); claims must be presented there first | Court: Unexhausted — Evans did not fairly present these due-process claims to LA Supreme Court in procedurally correct manner; dismiss without prejudice |
| Timeliness/delay of revocation | Evans: Board unlawfully delayed revocation (2003 to 2010/2012), causing prejudice | State: Same exhaustion route for procedural challenges; record did not show final revocation decision previously litigated in that posture | Court: Unexhausted — same conclusion as to delay claim |
| Credit for Wisconsin custody time | Evans: Entitled to credit because Wisconsin sentence ordered concurrent with LA sentence | State: Evans failed to exhaust administrative remedies with LA DOC before pursuing judicial relief; appellate court refused to address unexhausted administrative claim | Court: Unexhausted — Evans did not pursue available state administrative remedies fully and did not return to state court after administrative denial |
| Proper habeas vehicle / jurisdiction | Evans styled relief under §2241/§2254 asserting constitutional violations | State: Because custody is pursuant to state court judgment, §2254 applies and its exhaustion rules govern | Court: §2254 governs; exhaustion required under Rose v. Lundy; dismissal without prejudice recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1982) (federal habeas requires exhaustion of available state remedies)
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (U.S. 1999) (federal claims must be fairly presented to state’s highest court)
- Wilder v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2001) (fair presentation/exhaustion standard explained)
- Magouirk v. Phillips, 144 F.3d 348 (5th Cir. 1998) (exhaustion requires presentation in procedurally proper manner)
- Mercadel v. Cain, 179 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 1999) (federal habeas exhaustion principles applied)