Davis v. State of Alaska

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
MICHAEL JOSEPH DAVIS JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF ALASKA,
Respondent.1
Case No. 3:22-cv-00073-SLG
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On April 4, 2022, Michael Joseph Davis, Jr., a self-represented prisoner,
filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody. 	The Court takes judicial notice2 of Mr. Davis’s underlying criminal
conviction in State of Alaska v. Michael Joseph Davis, Jr., Case No. 3AN-12-
12425CR3 and his ongoing post-conviction proceedings, In the Matter of Michael
Joseph Davis, Jr. v. State of Alaska, Case Nos. 3AN-20-04416CI and 3AN-21-
07820CI. 	The Court notes that both post-conviction proceedings concern the
1 The Court notes that the State of Alaska is not a proper respondent. The proper respondent in
a Section 2254 habeas action must be the state officer who holds custody of the petitioner, for a
prisoner this is usually the prison superintendent or warden. Rule 2(a), Rules Governing Section
2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts; Belgarde v. Montana, 123 F.3d 1210, 1212
(9th Cir. 1997).
2 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a
party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.”
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399
F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in another tribunal are
appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Fed. R.
Evid. 201.
3 State of Alaska v. Michael Joseph Davis, Jr., Case No. 3AN-12-12425CR, (“Party Charge
Information: Sex Assault 2 – [Attempted] Contact w/o Consent 09/10/2015 Guilty After Trial”).
Case 3:22-cv-00073-SLG Document 6 Filed 06/03/22 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00073-SLG, Davis v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 4
same underlying conviction in State of Alaska v. Michael Joseph Davis, Jr., Case
No. 3AN-12-12425CR.4
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
A court must “promptly examine” a habeas petition.5 	“If it plainly appears
from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that
the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion.”6 Upon
screening, it plainly appears that Mr. Davis is not entitled to habeas relief pursuant
to Section 2254 at this time, and his petition must be dismissed.
DISCUSSION
Petitions 	filed 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2254 	must 	meet 	strict 	procedural
requirements. A prisoner that is in custody based on a state court conviction may
not bring a Section 2254 petition prior to exhausting his state court remedies.7
Exhaustion of state remedies requires the petition to fairly present the federal
claims to the state courts in order to give the state the opportunity to pass upon
and correct any alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights.8 	To satisfy the
4 In the Matter of Michael Joseph Davis, Jr. v. State of Alaska, Case No. 3AN-20-04415CI, Docket
Information entry dated January 21, 2020 (“Application for Post-Conviction Relief (Criminal Rule
35.1) Criminal Case No. 3AN-12-12425CR”); In the Matter of Michael Joseph Davis, Jr. v. State
of Alaska, Case No. 3AN-21-07820CI, Docket Information entry dated September 23, 2021
(“Application for Post-Conviction Relief (Criminal Rule 35.1) Criminal Case No. 3AN-12-
12425CR”)
5 Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
6 Id.
7 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).
8 Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curium).
Case 3:22-cv-00073-SLG Document 6 Filed 06/03/22 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00073-SLG, Davis v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 4
“fairly present” requirement, the petitioner must present his federal claim to “each
appropriate court (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary
review)” so that the each court is alerted to the federal nature of the claim.9 	In
Alaska, this means that claims must first be presented to the Alaska Superior
Court. If the petitioner disagrees with that result, the claim must then be raised to
the Alaska Court of Appeals, and if he disagrees with that result, the claim must
be raised in a petition for hearing to the Alaska Supreme Court.10 	This process
also applies to post-conviction proceedings by the Alaska Superior Court and
review of any post-conviction decision by the Alaska Court of Appeals and the
Alaska Supreme Court.11
In his petition, Mr. Davis does not provide information on his state court post-
conviction proceedings, but acknowledges his post-conviction counsel, Megan
Rowe.12 	The Court has taken judicial notice of the two ongoing post-conviction
proceedings.13 	Currently, Case No. 3AN-20-04416CI is set for an evidentiary
hearing on August 17, 2022;14 and Case No. 3AN-21-07820CI awaits an amended
9 Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (relying on Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66.).
10 See O’Sullivan v. Boerkel, 526 U.S. 828, 845. 	In Alaska, a criminal defendant may request
discretionary review by the Alaska Supreme Court. See Alaska Statutes §§ 22.05.010, 22.07.020,
and 22.07.030; Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 215, 301, and 302.
11 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c); see also O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 844-45. 	See generally Alaska R.
Crim. P. 35.1.
12 See generally Docket 1; Docket 1 at 13.
13 Supra note 4.
14 In the Matter of Michael Joseph Davis, Jr. v. State of Alaska, Case No. 3AN-20-04415CI, event
Case 3:22-cv-00073-SLG Document 6 Filed 06/03/22 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 3:22-cv-00073-SLG, Davis v. State of Alaska
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 4
post-conviction petition.15 In order to properly exhaust his remedies, Mr. Davis will
need to finish his post-conviction proceedings in Alaska Superior Court and then
receive final decisions from the Alaska Court of Appeals and the Alaska Supreme
Court, before returning to federal court. 	Because Mr. Davis has not exhausted
these remedies, his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cannot proceed at this time in
this Court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The 	Petition 	Under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2254 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, in order for Mr. Davis to properly exhaust his state remedies.
2. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.16
DATED this 3rd of June, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
entry dated August 17, 2022 (“Evidentiary Hearing: Superior Court”).
15 In the Matter of Michael Joseph Davis, Jr. v. State of Alaska, Case No. 3AN-21-07820CI, Docket
Information entry dated March 30, 2022 (“Order Granting Motion” “Case Motion #7: Motion for
Extension of Time to File Amended Petition for Post-Conviction Relief [Until 05/31/2022]”).
16 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(d), 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (certificate
of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
Case 3:22-cv-00073-SLG Document 6 Filed 06/03/22 Page 4 of 4