McKevie v. State of California
- Thompson
- 3:24-cv-01172
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In McKevie v. State of California, Judge Thompson let Demarius McKevie proceed without paying fees but dismissed his prison-discipline challenge without prejudice for failing to exhaust state remedies.
Demarius McKevie, a state prisoner, was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, but his petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state judicial remedies. The State of California was the respondent.
What happened
In McKevie v. State of California, Demarius McKevie challenged a prison disciplinary decision that found him guilty of distributing property without a legitimate reason and imposed a 90-day loss of credits. He said he had filed a grievance but had not filed a state court petition because he “wasn’t given the chance.”
The court granted McKevie permission to proceed without paying the filing fee but dismissed his petition without prejudice. The court ruled that he had not presented his claims to the highest available state court, and that his statement about not being given a chance did not excuse that failure. The dismissal allows refiling after he exhausts state remedies.
Judge Thompson also denied a certificate of appealability because reasonable judges would not find the result debatable. The court directed the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the file.
The detailed version
- McKevie v. State of California · No. 3:24-cv-01172
- Thompson
- June 26, 2024
Background
Demarius McKevie, identified as a state prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a November 2, 2023 prison disciplinary proceeding. The proceeding found him guilty of property distribution without a legitimate reason and imposed a 90-day loss of credits. McKevie stated that he filed a grievance but did not file a state court petition because he “wasn’t given the chance.”
Rulings
The court granted McKevie leave to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he could proceed without paying the filing fee. The court then dismissed the petition without prejudice under the screening rule for federal petitions challenging state custody. That rule requires dismissal when the petition shows that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
The court held that McKevie had not exhausted his state judicial remedies. Exhaustion required him to present his claims to the highest available state court, either on direct appeal or through a state collateral proceeding, before seeking federal relief. The court stated that the exhaustion requirement applies to credit-loss claims that shorten a prisoner's confinement. It also ruled that McKevie's statement that he “wasn’t given a chance” to file a state petition did not establish an absent or ineffective state process excusing exhaustion. The court stated that the respondent was not required to give him an opportunity to file a state petition; McKevie had to pursue that process himself.
The petition was dismissed without prejudice to refiling after McKevie exhausts his state judicial remedies by presenting his claims to the highest state court. The court denied a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the result debatable. The clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and close the file.
Classification rationale
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust state remedies without deciding the underlying challenge to the disciplinary proceeding.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.