United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
DONALD E. O'BRIEN, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Jamie Lee Cole's (hereinafter Mr. Cole) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint (Docket No. 1) against the above named Defendants (both known and unknown) and his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 2). Mr. Cole alleges a number of violations against the above named Defendants.
At the outset, the Court notes that Mr. Cole has brought a number of previous lawsuits in Federal Court.
On November 5, 2004, Mr. Cole filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in the Northern District of Iowa. On December 14, 2004, Judge Linda Reade denied Mr. Cole's Petition, finding that:
the petitioner clearly states in his application for a writ of habeas corpus that he hasn't had a response to his application for post-conviction relief. In addition, it appears that his court appointed attorney currently is looking into whether the petitioner is able to assert claims in a post-conviction relief action pursuant to Chapter 822 of the Iowa Code. Based on the petitioner's statements and the records of the Iowa District Court In and For Del[a]ware County, the court finds the petitioner failed to adequately allege that he presented his claims to the state courts as he is required to do if he seeks habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Carmichael v. White , 163 F.3d 1044, 1045-46 (8th Cir. 1998). See also Iowa Code § 822.1, et al. (providing for postconviction relief). Further, the court finds the petitioner failed to show good cause for any failure to present his claims to the highest state court and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged constitutional violation or a potential for the fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750; Keithley, 43 F.3d at 1218; Maynard, 981 F.2d at 984; Buckley, 892 F.2d at 718. Because it is clear 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) bars the petitioner's action, the application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be dismissed summarily under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
See 04-CV-2086-LRR, Docket No. 8, p. 7-8.
Mr. Cole filed a second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition on December 14, 2012. Judge Reade again denied Mr. Cole's claims, stating:
In his current application for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner again admits that the Iowa Supreme Court never had an opportunity to review his claims. Additionally, a review of his state court cases, including his underlying criminal case and post-conviction relief actions, indicates that the petitioner never exhausted his claims in the appropriate state forum. Therefore, it is appropriate to dismiss the petitioner's action for failing to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Moreover, under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), the petitioner had one year from the date on which his judgment became final to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus, but he waited until November 14, 2012 to seek habeas corpus relief. Such date is well beyond the one year period. Consequently, the petitioner's habeas corpus action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Lastly, a review of the petitioner's state court cases indicates that his current confinement is not related to the 2004 conviction that he complains about in this action. The petitioner is not attacking the validity of his current confinement. Rather, he is contesting the possible consequences that he might face if he fails to register as a sex offender, which is a remedial requirement of his 2004 conviction.
12-CV-0125-LRR, Docket No. 2, p. 2-3.
Mr. Cole has also previously filed 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaints. On May 25, 2004, Mr. Cole filed a Complaint alleging that his sentence was inappropriate and did not accord with his plea agreement. Mr. Cole asked Judge Mark W. Bennett to order him released from the half way house he was then residing in. Judge Bennett ruled that:
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the plain language of the complaint demonstrates the plaintiff is challenging the validity of his confinement... The relief sought by the plaintiff is not available in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Thus, the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 shall be dismissed. Construing the action as an application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed for failure to meet the exhaustion requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Accordingly, this action shall be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
04-CV-1024-MWB, Docket No. 2, p. 2-3.
On November 16, 2012, Mr. Cole filed another pro se document in the Northern District of Iowa, which Judge Reade liberally construed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint. In the document, Mr. Cole alleged that he should be afforded a single room, that he was being harassed, and that his family was not helping him as much as he felt they should. Judge Reade denied that Complaint, stating:
The matter before the court is the plaintiff's letter, which the clerk's office construed as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The clerk's office filed such complaint on November 20, 2012. The petitioner did not submit the required filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring $350.00 filing fee for civil actions, except that on application for a writ of habeas corpus the filing fee is $5.00); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (explaining in forma pauperis proceedings). Further, the petitioner's letter is not sufficient to commence an action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 3 (indicating a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint); see ...