Sy Dalton Singletary v. State of North Carolina

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SY DALTON SINGLETARY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) 1:26CV164 ) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ) ) Respondent.)

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The petitioner, a prisoner of the State of North Carolina, submitted a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody.

For the following reasons, the Petition cannot be further processed.

First, the petitioner did not provide a filing fee, nor did he submit a signed affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis.

The petitioner indicates that he did not exhaust his state court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). This Court cannot grant relief unless state court remedies have been exhausted. Id. In North Carolina, a petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement of § 2254 by raising his claim(s) in a direct appeal of his conviction and/or sentence to the North Carolina Court of Appeals followed by a petition to the Supreme Court of North Carolina for discretionary review, or by raising his claims in a Motion for Appropriate Relief (“MAR”) and petitioning the North Carolina Court of Appeals for a writ of certiorari if the MAR is denied. See Lassiter v. Lewis, No. 5:11-HC-2082-D, 2012 WL 1965434, at *4-5 (E.D.N.C. May 31, 2012) (unpublished) (citing O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999), and N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A–31, 15A–1422). The petitioner indicates that he did file a MAR, but that he did not pursue a petition for a writ of certiorari with the North Carolina Court of Appeals, as he must to exhaust his state court remedies. See Docket Entry 1, § 11 (a), (d), (e).

Because of these pleading failures, the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner filing a new petition on the proper habeas corpus forms with the $5.00 filing fee, or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, and otherwise correcting the defects noted. The Court has no authority to toll the statute of limitation; therefore, it continues to run, and the petitioner must act quickly if he wishes to pursue this petition. See Spencer v. Sutton, 239 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 2001). To further aid the petitioner, the Clerk is instructed to send the petitioner a new application to proceed in forma pauperis, § 2254 forms, and instructions for filing a § 2254 petition, which Petitioner should follow.

In forma pauperis status will be granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. The Clerk is instructed to send the petitioner § 2254 forms, instructions, and a current application to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition which corrects the defects of the current Petition.

This, the 23rd day of March, 2026.

J af Gibson □□ United States Magistrate Judge