Cook v. Salamon

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FABIAN ALEXANDER COOK, :

Petitioner :

: No. 1:24-cv-00598

v. :

: (Judge Rambo)

BOBBI JO SALAMON, et al., :

:

Respondent s :

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the court is pro se Petitioner Fabian Alexander Cook

(“Cook”)’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

challenging the denial of his application for parole by officials of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For the reasons that follow, the petition will be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

I. BACKGROUND

Cook is currently incarcerated in Rockville State Correctional Institution

(“SCI-Rockville”). He filed the instant petition on April 1, 2024, and the court

received and docketed the petition on April 9, 2024. (Doc. No. 1.) Cook asserts

five claims for habeas corpus relief: (1) that Cook’s due process rights were

violated when he was denied parole for arbitrary reasons; (2) that he has been

denied parole in retaliation for his filing of earlier civil actions, which violates his

rights under the First Amendment; (3) that the denial of Cook’s parole constitutes

cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment because officials

denied him parole based on the facts of his underlying criminal conviction; (4) that

the parole board lacks jurisdiction over him because his underlying criminal

sentence is unlawful; and (5) that the denial of parole violates his right to be free

from slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 4 of the rules governing habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254, a district court must promptly review a petition and dismiss it if it is plain

from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. §

2254 Rule 4.

III. DISCUSSION

Habeas corpus petitions challenging the denial of state parole are properly

treated as filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Coady

v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 2001). Before seeking habeas corpus relief

pursuant to Section 2254, a state prisoner must exhaust remedies in state court. 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To do

so, the petitioner must “give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any

constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established

appellate review process.” O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 842. To be deemed exhausted,

a federal habeas corpus claim must be “fairly presented” in state court, meaning

that the petitioner must present the claim’s “factual and legal substance to the state

courts in a manner that puts them on notice that a federal claim is being asserted.”

Bronshtein v. Horn, 404 F.3d 700, 725 (3d Cir. 2005) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted). The petitioner must present the claims in state court in

accordance with state procedural rules. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731-

32 (1991).

Section 2254 requires “total exhaustion” of state court remedies, meaning

that all claims asserted in a federal habeas corpus petition must be exhausted in

state court. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 274 (3d Cir. 2005). Thus, when a

federal court is presented with a “mixed” petition—that is, a petition that presents

both exhausted and unexhausted claims—the federal court should ordinarily

dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

Id. at 274, 277. In “limited circumstances,” a district court may stay a federal

petition and hold it in abeyance pending the petitioner’s attempts to exhaust state

court remedies. Id. at 277. Stay and abeyance of the federal petition is only

appropriate “if the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his

unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the

petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id. at 278.

The court will dismiss this petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust

state court remedies. The petition contains at least one unexhausted claim, as Cook

acknowledges that his claim challenging the legality of his underlying criminal

sentence is currently being litigated in a petition filed under Pennsylvania’s Post-

Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”) in the Berks County Court of Common Pleas.

(See Doc. No. 1 at 32.) Cook has not moved to stay litigation of his federal habeas

corpus petition pending his attempt to exhaust state court remedies on this claim,

nor has he shown good cause for his failure to previously exhaust the claim. See

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278 (holding that petitioner must show good cause for failure

to exhaust state court remedies for federal court to stay habeas corpus petition).

Accordingly, the court finds that dismissal of this mixed petition without prejudice

for failure to exhaust state court remedies is appropriate.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Cook’s petition for writ of habeas corpus will be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. A

certificate of appealability will not issue because jurists of reason would not debate

the correctness of this procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). An appropriate Order follows.

s/ Sylvia H. Rambo

United States District Judge

Dated: April 16, 2024