United States District Court, D. Alaska
ADAM M. BLOODGOOD, Petitioner,
JOHN CONANT, Respondent.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS, District Judge.
On February 6, 2015, Adam M. Bloodgood, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2002 conviction and sentence for theft in Alaska Superior Court Case Number 3AN-02-08854CR. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court must review the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." If so, "the judge must dismiss the petition."
Mr. Bloodgood states that he has raised none of the grounds for relief brought in his Petition in the state courts, on direct appeal or in a state post-conviction petition. But federal habeas relief is not available "unless the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State." That is, "[b]efore seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus, a state prisoner must... giv[e] the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct' alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights." To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a "prisoner must fairly present' his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal nature of the claim."
The Supreme Court has explained that "[t]he exhaustion doctrine... is founded on concerns broader than those of the parties; in particular, the doctrine fosters respectful, harmonious relations between the state and federal judiciaries."
Thus, Mr. Bloodgood must bring each of his claims in the state trial court, the state appellate court and the state supreme court, before filing a federal petition. Without satisfying the exhaustion requirement, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear a challenge to his state conviction and/or sentence.
Please be aware that there is a one-year limitations period in which to file a habeas petition,  and that a petition brought under § 2254 will be dismissed if not brought within that period, unless there are "extraordinary circumstances" beyond Mr. Bloodgood's control, which made it impossible to file his petition on time. Although this time period is tolled (suspended) during the pendency of any state court post-conviction proceedings,  the United States Supreme Court has decided that "an application for federal habeas corpus review is not an application for State post-conviction or other collateral review' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)." Thus, the time during which Mr. Bloodgood has had an action pending in this Court, since not an "application for State post-conviction or other collateral review, " does not toll, in other words stop or pause, that one-year time period. So, in the event that the one-year limitations period has not yet run, Mr. Bloodgood should promptly begin exhausting his state court remedies, or risk the running of the statute of limitations, forever barring relief in federal court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED. Mr. Bloodgood may file a timely new case in this Court after all issues that he seeks to raise are exhausted in the state courts by presentation first to the Alaska Superior Court then, if Mr. Bloodgood disagrees with that result, to the Alaska Court of Appeals and then, if he disagrees with that result, in a petition for hearing to the Alaska Supreme Court.
2. Any outstanding motions are DENIED.
3. The Clerk of Court will enter a Judgment ...