Gourdine v. McFadden
9:17-cv-01803
D.S.C.Nov 3, 2017Background
- Petitioner James Morris Gourdine, a South Carolina state inmate, filed a pro se document using a §2254 form seeking vacation of his March 17, 2016 state-court sentences (three concurrent life-without-parole for attempted murder; five years for conspiracy).
- The petition was procedurally defective and factually confusing: Gourdine crossed out §2254, added references to §1983 and writ of error, listed multiple unrelated defendants and other inmates, and attached an appellate brief showing his state appeal was pending.
- Magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice because Gourdine had not exhausted state remedies and the petition was vague/conclusory in violation of Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases.
- Gourdine objected, arguing his claims should proceed under writ of error or §1983 and claiming state remedies were unavailable due to alleged misconduct by state actors.
- The district court construed the filing as a §2254 habeas corpus petition (challenge to validity of confinement), held §1983 and writ-of-error theories improper for seeking release, and found the proper respondent is the warden.
- Court concluded Gourdine has unexhausted remedies (pending appeals in state court) and dismissed the petition without prejudice; denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper vehicle for relief | Gourdine argued relief via writ of error or §1983 | Court/respondent: claims challenge custody and should be §2254 | Court: Petition construed under §2254; §1983/writ of error improper to attack confinement |
| Proper respondent/ defendants | Gourdine listed state courts, judges and others as defendants | Respondent: custodian (warden) is proper respondent; other parties improper | Court: Warden of Lieber CI is sole proper respondent; other defendants improper |
| Exhaustion of state remedies | Gourdine claimed state remedies were unavailable due to misconduct | Respondent: state remedies are available; appeals pending | Court: Exhaustion required; claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust |
| Adequacy of petition under Rule 2(c) | Gourdine submitted a confused, multi-case filing with conclusory allegations | Respondent: petition is vague, conclusory and fails Rule 2(c) | Court: Petition is vague/conclusory; dismissal without prejudice appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (habeas relief is the exclusive federal remedy for state prisoners challenging the validity of confinement)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (the prisoner’s custodian is the proper respondent in habeas actions)
- Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838 (4th Cir. 1986) (state prisoner must use habeas corpus, not §1983, to seek release)
- Slayton v. Smith, 404 U.S. 53 (1971) (federal court should not retain habeas petition while petitioner exhausts state remedies)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for certificate of appealability requires substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right)
- Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1982) (general, conclusory objections to a magistrate’s report do not require de novo review)