Shuman v. Hall, 5:15-cv-00088

Petitioner Ernest Shuman is serving a life sentence (convicted in 1990 after a guilty plea in Thomas County, GA) and challenges the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles’ denial of parole on August 20, 2015.
Shuman filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition in the Southern District of Georgia contesting the Board’s parole denial as a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
Respondents moved to dismiss, arguing Shuman failed to exhaust state remedies (he had not sought Georgia court review, e.g., a writ of mandamus or state habeas).
The Magistrate Judge found Shuman is a state-court custodian so § 2254 procedural restrictions (including exhaustion and the statute of limitations) apply, even when parole decisions are challenged.
Because there is no record that Shuman pursued state review of the parole denial, the Magistrate recommended dismissal without prejudice, denied a stay/abeyance, and recommended denial of in forma pauperis on appeal and denial of a Certificate of Appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shuman exhausted state remedies before filing federal habeas	Shuman argues the Board violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying parole	Respondents argue Shuman failed to exhaust state remedies and should have sought mandamus or state habeas	Court held Shuman failed to exhaust; petition dismissed without prejudice
Whether § 2254 or § 2241 governs this challenge	Shuman implied § 2241 might be appropriate for parole-execution claims	Respondents asserted § 2254 applies because Shuman is in custody under a state judgment	Court held § 2254 governs and its procedural rules apply
Whether to stay and hold the petition in abeyance to permit exhaustion	Shuman requested the Court hold the petition in abeyance to allow state litigation	Respondents sought dismissal for failure to exhaust	Court declined a stay because the entire petition is unexhausted (not a mixed petition) and dismissed without prejudice
Whether to allow IFP on appeal and issue a Certificate of Appealability (COA)	Shuman did not present a substantial showing of constitutional denial	Respondents argued appeal would be frivolous; procedural bar forecloses COA	Court recommended denying IFP on appeal and denying a COA

Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049 (11th Cir. 2003) (state prisoner has one federal habeas remedy; § 2241 and § 2254 distinctions)
Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782 (11th Cir. 2004) (§ 2254 applies to state-court custodians and its restrictions govern challenges to parole decisions)
Peoples v. Chatman, 393 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2004) (habeas remedy authorized by § 2241 is subject to § 2254 restrictions)
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (requirement to present federal claims through one full round of state appellate review)
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay-and-abeyance available only for good cause and not for plainly meritless claims)
Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129 (1987) (district court may deny petition on merits without requiring exhaustion if claim is not colorable)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standards for Certificate of Appealability require overview and assessment of merits)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (procedural bars foreclose COA when reasonable jurists could not debate correctness of dismissal)
Day v. Hall, 528 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2008) (Georgia parole decisions are properly challenged by petition for writ of mandamus)
Brown v. Barrow, 512 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2008) (same: mandamus is the correct vehicle to challenge Georgia parole decisions)