Prince v. David Gray, Warden, Belmont Correctional, 2:20-cv-04102

Petitioner Christopher Prince, a state prisoner, filed a pro se § 2254 habeas petition and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; IFP was granted.
Prince alleges that inadequate COVID-19 precautions at Belmont Correctional Institution (insufficient distancing and masking) and deliberate indifference to prisoners’ health violate due process and the Eighth Amendment.
Prince asserts he is at high risk from COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions and that he has recovered or is recovering from COVID-19.
Official records show Prince is serving a two-year sentence that expires February 11, 2021; he says he filed a motion for judicial release but does not show further state or administrative filings.
The magistrate judge conducted a Rule 4 preliminary review and found on the face of the petition that Prince had not exhausted available remedies.
Recommendation: dismiss the petition without prejudice as unexhausted and deny declaratory and injunctive relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of remedies for habeas relief premised on COVID-19 prison conditions	Prince contends COVID-19 conditions amount to constitutional violations warranting release or injunctive/declaratory relief	Respondent (and the court) notes Prince did not pursue state-court relief or administrative remedies and therefore has not exhausted available remedies	Petition recommended dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust; declaratory and injunctive requests denied

Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346 (1989) (federal habeas requires prior presentation of claims to state courts)
Silverburg v. Evitts, 993 F.2d 124 (6th Cir. 1993) (exhaustion requirement applies in habeas cases)
Manning v. Alexander, 912 F.2d 878 (6th Cir. 1990) (constitutional claims must be presented to the state’s highest court to exhaust)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (explains policy rationales supporting exhaustion and administrative review)
McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) (administrative agencies should have opportunity to correct their errors before federal litigation)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report waives de novo review)
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (failure to object to R&R waives appellate review)