Okum v. Smith, 5:24-cv-00177

Kevin Michael Okum filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his pretrial detention related to a probation violation and a new criminal charge.
Okum previously pleaded guilty to theft by deception and deceptive business practices and received a four-year probation sentence.
While on probation, he was arrested for firearm possession, leading to custody and a probation revocation.
He did not appeal his 2023 guilty plea but sought relief from his pretrial detention, claiming to have submitted a habeas corpus petition and notice of appeal in state court.
The federal court ordered Okum to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. He did not respond.
The court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust available state court remedies.

Issue	Okum's Argument	Smith's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of state remedies	Claimed to have filed in state court and appealed	Petitioner hadn't fully completed state review	Petition dismissed; lack of exhaustion
Right to federal habeas relief	Sought relief for detention pending probation issues	Not addressed in detail	Not entitled to relief absent exhaustion
Procedural default for failure to respond	Did not answer show-cause order	Not addressed	Failure to respond—procedural dismissal
Certificate of appealability	Not requested	Not addressed	Denied; ruling not debatable among jurists

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (exhaustion doctrine requires full round of state appellate review)
Hannah v. Conley, 49 F.3d 1193 (exhaustion of state remedies is prerequisite to federal habeas corpus)
Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155 (petitioner bears burden to show exhaustion or futility)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability on procedural grounds)
Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900 (district court can issue/determine certificate of appealability sua sponte)