Kellier v. McAuliffe, 1:24-cv-08253

Joshua Kellier, a state prisoner, filed a pro se federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his July 25, 2024, conviction in New York Supreme Court.
Kellier alleged he was convicted by a jury of multiple criminal offenses and sentenced to seven years in prison with ten years of probation.
He claimed he appealed his conviction to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, but asserted he had been denied his right to appeal as there was "no result."
The Court noted Kellier’s appeal was actually still pending before the Appellate Division, docket number 24-05177; he had not yet sought review from the New York Court of Appeals, nor pursued other state collateral remedies.
The Court considered Kellier’s second amended petition as the operative pleading but found he had not exhausted available state court remedies before seeking federal relief.
The Court dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice for failure to satisfy the exhaustion doctrine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of State Remedies required for §2254	Kellier claimed denial of appeal rights and no available state remedies because of lack of appellate response	State argued (and Court confirmed) appeal is still pending and remedies not yet exhausted	Petitioner did not exhaust state remedies; petition dismissed without prejudice

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (requirement to exhaust state remedies before federal habeas relief)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (state courts must have first opportunity to review constitutional claims)
Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117 (court may dismiss habeas petition plainly lacking merit without response)
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (courts must construe pro se filings liberally)
Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90 (pro se litigants must still comply with substantive/procedural law requirements)