IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA HELENA DIVISION JASON CHIEFSTICK, Cause No. CV 22-24-H-SEH Petitioner, vs. ORDER PETE BLUDWORTH, Respondent.

On April 4, 2022, Jason Chiefstick (“Chiefstick”), a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.' Although he purportedly seeks habeas corpus relief in this Court, the document he filed is captioned for filing in state court.” The Court is required to screen all actions brought by prisoners who seek relief.> A habeas petition must be dismissed if claims asserted are legally frivolous or fail to state a basis upon which relief may be granted.‘ Chiefstick’s claims, at a minimum, are unexhausted. The petition will be dismissed without prejudice.

' See Doc. | at 5. Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a prisoner’s document is deemed filed “at the time [it is] delivered to the prison authorities for forwarding to the court clerk.” Houston v. Lack,

(1988). 2 See Doc.1 at 1.

(a). 428 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

I. Exhaustion Chiefstick alleges that he was unlawfully denied parole by the Montana Board of Pardons and Parole.° His claims, as asserted, challenge state law provisions.© However, this Court may only entertain a habeas corpus petition if the petition demonstrates that the petitioner is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’ On April 21, 2022, Chiefstick filed a Motion for Clarification in follow up to the April 4, 2022, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, in which he asserted he had filed a state habeas petition in Toole County District Court,’ and that he now seeks guidance from this Court as to whether he must exhaust his state court remedies before he can proceed in federal Court.” A federal court may entertain a petition for habeas relief only if the petitioner has first exhausted state court remedies.'° To meet the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must (1) use the “remedies available,”'! through the state’s established procedures for appellate review,!* (2) describe “the federal legal

Doc. 1 at 2-4. 6 See Doc. 1-1 at 1-2; see also Doc. 1-2. 7 See

(a). 8 See Doc. 3 at 1; see also Chiefstick v. Bludworth et al., Cause No. DV-2022-1 1-HC, Pet. (filed April 8, 2022). Doc. 3 at 1-2. See

(b)(1)(A); see also Baldwin v. Reese,

(2004). § 2254(b)(1)(A) Q’Sullivan v. Boerckel,

(1999) -2-

theory on which his claim is based,”'? and (3) describe “the operative facts...

necessary to give application to the constitutional principle upon which the petitioner relies.”'* All three prongs of the test must be addressed in one proceeding. “Mere ‘general appeals to broad constitutional principles, such as due process, equal protection, and the right to a fair trial,’ do not establish exhaustion.”!> The Toole County District Court has not yet considered Chiefstick’s claims, nor have those claims been presented to the Montana Supreme Court.'® He has not yet exhausted his available state court remedies and this Court cannot now review the claims.'? Dismissal will be without prejudice. Il. Certificate of Appealability “The district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”'® Such a certificate should issue as to those claims on which a petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”!?

'3 Davis v. Silva,

(9th Cir. 2008). '4 See Davis v. Silva,

(9th Cir. 2008); see also Gray v. Netherland,

(1996). '5 Castillo v. McFadden,

, cert. denied,

(2005). '6 C'Sullivan v. Boerckel,

(1999). '7 See Rose v. Lundy,

(1982). '8 Rule 11(a), Rules governing § 2254 Proceedings. '9

(c)(2). -3-

Chiefstick has not made a substantial showing that he was deprived of a federal constitutional right. A certificate of appealability will be denied. ORDERED: 1. Chiefstick’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment of dismissal. 3. Accertificate of appealability is DENIED. 4. Chiefstick’s Motion for Clarification”® is DENIED as moot. DATED this art of April, 2022.

United States District Judge

0 Doc. 3. -4-