Parrish v. USP - Big Sandy
1:13-cv-00279
M.D. Penn.Jun 5, 2013Background
- Parrish filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his 2002 York County convictions for simple assault, reckless endangerment, and criminal conspiracy to commit simple assault.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice due to lack of exhaustion of state remedies.
- Parrish filed objections arguing the state had opportunity to adjudicate but refused; he cites PCRA delays and counsel issues.
- Parrish was sentenced to time-served up to 23 months for assault and an additional 12 months for reckless endangerment; no direct appeal was taken.
- A PCRA petition has been pending in state court since July 2010, and exhaustion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) is required before federal review.
- The Court cites Rose v. Lundy and explains the exhaustion rule as essential to comity, leading to dismissal for non-exhaustion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parrish exhausted state remedies. | Parrish argues exhaustion is satisfied since state courts were given opportunity. | Court should require full exhaustion; state remedies not yet exhausted due to pending PCRA. | Not exhausted; petition dismissed without prejudice. |
| Whether the petition should be entertained despite non-exhaustion. | Petition should proceed because state courts have been given full opportunity. | Exhaustion rule blocks federal review until state remedies are exhausted. | Petition cannot be entertained until exhaustion is complete. |
| What standard governs the District Court's review of the R&R. | No specific contention on standard beyond objections. | De novo review applies to objections to the R&R. | Court conducts de novo review of objections and adopts the R&R. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (rigorously enforced total exhaustion rule to prevent premature federal review)
- O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (state should be given initial opportunity to correct constitutional violations)
- Whitney v. Horn, 280 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2002) (exhaustion requirement rooted in comity)
- Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (de novo standard may be applied to findings on objections)
- Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (standard for review in federal proceedings)
- Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5 (3d Cir. 1984) (order of review and procedural posture in habeas matters)