Mayes v. Scorsone

District Court, E.D. Kentucky

Mayes v. Scorsone

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON

RITCHIE E. MAYES, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-204-KKC-MAS Petitioner, V. OPINION AND ORDER ERNESTO SCORSONE, Respondent. *** *** *** Petitioner Ritchie E. Mayes has filed a Petition under 28. U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for a Temporary Injunction. (DE 1, 18). The Commonwealth opposes the requested relief, arguing that the petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies. (DE 9). Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett has recommended that the Court deny the Petition —along with any remaining motions— and not issue a Certificate of Appealability. (DE 19). As grounds, the magistrate judge contends that the petitioner has, indeed, failed to exhaust his state court remedies, and as such, the Court also lacks jurisdiction to consider any remaining motions. (Id.). No party has filed any objections to the Report & Recommendation. Mayes argues that his Speedy Trial Act rights are currently being violated. Under

28 U.S.C. § 2254

(b)(1), a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted unless it appears that a petitioner has exhausted all available state court remedies. To exhaust a federal

constitutional claim, a petitioner must “fairly present” in state court both the operative facts and federal legal theory of his or her claim in a procedurally appropriate manner. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,

526 U.S. 838, 848

(1999); Anderson v. Harless,

459 U.S. 4, 6

(1982). The Court has reviewed the Report & Recommendation, along with the full record in this case, and agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis: denial is appropriate for failure to exhaust. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 1) the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation (DE 19) is ADOPTED as the Court’s opinion; 2) Ritchie E. Mayes’ petition for habeas relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2254

(DE 1) and motion for a temporary injunction (DE 18) are both DENIED; and 3) Mayes having failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,”

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(2), a certificate of appealability shall NOT issue. Dated September 29, 2020

J ASL. atta ¢ Bae Bete €E aos = a We? ie. KAREN EK. CALDWELL “eae CUUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE oS EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Reference

Status
Unknown