United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
James
K. Singleton, Jr. Senior United States District Judge
On
November 19, 2018, self-represented prisoner Timothy Bedwell
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his
February 2014 conviction after a jury trial in the Superior
Court of the State of Alaska, Case Number
4FA-12-02343CR.[1]Bedwell also attached a prisoner account
statement to his filing.[2] Bedwell raises the following grounds
for relief: 1) “lack of jurisdiction;” 2)
“violation of due process;” 3) “deprivation
of rights under color of law;” and 4) “fraud upon
the court.” Federal law requires the Court to conduct
the following preliminary review of this habeas
petition.[3]
Prior
Petitions
Prior
to the current petition, on September 21, 2018, a party,
claiming to hold Mr. Bedwell's power of attorney, filed a
“Mandatory Writ of Habeas Corpus” on behalf of
Mr. Bedwell.[4] This Court dismissed that petition without
prejudice, because it was neither filed by Mr. Bedwell, nor
filed by an attorney on his behalf.[5] Additionally, Mr. Bedwell
had not exhausted his state remedies and his petition was
filed on California state court forms.[6]
On
November 6, 2018, Bedwell filed another petition that was
again filed by an individual that is neither Mr. Bedwell nor
a licensed attorney and was written on California state court
forms.[7] This Court also dismissed that petition
without prejudice for those deficiencies as well as his
failure to exhaust state remedies.[8] The Court takes judicial
notice[9] of its prior orders in Bedwell v.
State of Alaska, 3:18-cv-218-TMB at Docket 4, issued
October 29, 2018, and Bedwell v. State of Alaska,
4:18-cv-37-RRB at Docket 6, issued November 16, 2018.
Review
of Mr. Bedwell's Petition
Mr.
Bedwell continues to have not exhausted his state remedies in
regards to habeas corpus.[10] A search of the Alaska Court
system reveals that the Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed the
judgment of conviction against Bedwell on May 16,
2018.[11] However, a search also shows that the
Alaska Supreme Court still has not ruled on Mr. Bedwell's
case, and it is not clear that Bedwell has filed a petition
for review in the Alaska Supreme Court.[12] The Court
takes judicial notice of the state court proceedings as
well.[13]
This
Court could stay the Petition to allow Bedwell to complete
state court review and satisfy the exhaustion
requirement.[14] However, Bedwell has not requested that
this Court stay and hold his Petition in abeyance. Moreover,
the Supreme Court has held that it is an abuse of discretion
to stay a petition pending exhaustion where: 1) the
petitioner has not show good cause for failing to exhaust all
available state court remedies; and 2) the unexhausted claim
is “plainly meritless.”[15] Even if Bedwell had fully
exhausted the claims in the instant Petition, he would not be
entitled to relief on the unsupported claims and requests for
relief raised in it. Bedwell's Petition recites, for the
most part without facts or elaboration, phrases such as
“lack of jurisdiction, ” “non valid
warrant, ” “non valid stamp, ”
“kidnapping, traffic[k]ing in persons, unlawful
conversion, unlawful conveyance, unlawful concealment,
misappropriations, involuntary servitude, barratry,
conspiracy, attempted murder, def[a]mation of character,
mistaken identity, col[l]usion, ” “fraud upon the
court, ” “jury tampering, conspiracy, bribery,
coer[c]ion, void orders/judgement.”[16]
Rule
2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that
the petition must “specify all grounds for relief
available to the petitioner [and] state the facts supporting
each ground.” Here, Bedwell fails to articulate his
claims or cite facts that would support an inference that his
federal constitutional rights may have been violated.
Likewise, the Petition refers to an attached document for
elaboration, yet Bedwell attached only his prisoner account
statement to the Petition.
This
Court would have to engage in a tenuous analysis in order to
attempt to identify the claims in the Petition. Although pro
se habeas filings must be construed liberally, [17] such leniency
should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of
ferreting out grounds for relief, and “[c]onclusory
allegations which are not supported by a statement of
specific facts do not warrant habeas
relief.”[18] Facts must be stated in the petition
with sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from
the face of the petition, whether further habeas corpus
review is warranted. Moreover, the allegations should be
sufficiently specific to permit the respondent to assert
appropriate objections and defenses.[19] The lack of particularity
thus bars any meaningful review and consideration in federal
court, independent of Bedwell's failure to fairly present
the claims to the state courts. To the extent Mr. Bedwell
chooses, after he has exhausted his claims in state court, to
file another § 2254, he should be mindful of the
pleading requirements on federal habeas review.
For the
aforementioned reasons, this petition must be dismissed.
IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. This
case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Mr. Bedwell may file a
timely new habeas petition in this Court after all federal
claims that he seeks to raise have been exhausted in the
state courts by presentation first to the Alaska Superior
Court and then, if Mr. Bedwell disagrees with that result, to
the Alaska Court of Appeals, and ...