Rios v. Dismukes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:25-cv-00280-MR
JOSE A. RIOS, )
)
Petitioner, )
) MEMORANDUM OF
vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER
)
LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES, )
Secretary, North Carolina )
Department of Adult Correction, )
)
Respondent. )
________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of the pro se
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Jose
A. Rios (“Petitioner”) on April 25, 2025. [Doc. 1]. Petitioner has also filed an
Application To Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees Or Costs.
[Doc. 2].
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina.1 Petitioner was
convicted on July 6, 2017, in Gaston County Superior Court of two counts of
1 See https://webapps.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=
1548344&searchOffenderId=1548344&searchDOBRange=0&listurl=pagelistoffendersea
rchresults&listpage=1 (herein “NCDAC Database”); Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Case 3:25-cv-00280-MR Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 7

2
second-degree murder. NCDAC Database at 2. Petitioner was sentenced to
consecutive terms of 168 months to 214 months imprisonment. [Doc. 1 at 1].
Petitioner commenced this action seeking relief from an “A-24” (possession
of weapon) prison disciplinary conviction he received while incarcerated at
the Alexander Correctional Institution in March 2025. [Id.]. Petitioner
requests the reversal of his disciplinary conviction, reinstatement of all good-
time credits lost due to this conviction, and a refund of the $10.00 levied from
his Inmate Trust Account. [Id. at 15].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Title 28, U.S.C. § 2254, applies to “a person in custody under a state-
court judgment who seeks a determination that the custody violates the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Rule 1(a)(1), 28 U.S.C.
foll. § 2254. Under § 2254, a state prisoner’s claims are limited to allegations
that challenge either the fact or duration of their confinement. Preisier v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973).
A petitioner may proceed on a claim related to a prison disciplinary
proceeding only to the extent that the disciplinary conviction increased the
duration of the petitioner’s custody. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79
(2005) (“Because an action for restoration of good-time credits in effect
demands immediate release or a shorter period of detention, it attacks ‘the
Case 3:25-cv-00280-MR Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 7

3
very duration of ... physical confinement,’ ... and thus lies at ‘the core of
habeas corpus[.]’”) (quoting Preisier, 411 U.S. at 487-488). Inmates possess
a protected liberty interest in the award of gain time and are entitled to “the
minimum requirements of procedural due process” at disciplinary
proceedings resulting in the loss of gain time. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.
539, 557-558 (1974).
In reviewing a § 2254 petition, the Court is guided by Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which directs the district court to
dismiss a petition when it plainly appears from the petition and any exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
III. DISCUSSION
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a
petitioner must exhaust his available state remedies before he may pursue
habeas relief in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Mallory v. Smith,
27 F.3d 991, 992 (4th Cir. 1994). “When a state prisoner challenges the
length or duration of his confinement by alleging that certain good time
credits were cancelled or denied pursuant to an unconstitutional process,
and then seeks the restoration of those credits by way of a
federal habeas petition, he must first exhaust his state remedies.” Cannon
v. Slagle, 2017 WL 1458205, *2 (W.D.N.C. April 24, 2017) (citing Todd v.
Case 3:25-cv-00280-MR Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70, 72 (4th Cir. 1983)). When challenging a prison
disciplinary conviction, the burden is on the Petitioner to show, if he can, that
he has exhausted both his state administrative and judicial remedies.
The exhaustion requirement reflects “an accommodation of our federal
system designed to give the State an initial opportunity to pass upon and
correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Picard v. Connor,
404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In
order “[t]o provide the State with the necessary opportunity, the prisoner
must fairly present his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state
supreme court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that
court to the federal nature of the claim.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29
(2004) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); Jones v. Sussex I
State Prison, 591 F.3d 707, 712–13 (4th Cir. 2010) (same, quoting Baldwin).
In other words, if a convicted state inmate fails to identify and pursue
a federal constitutional claim in state court post-conviction proceedings, the
state court is deprived of the opportunity to evaluate the claim and the inmate
thereby abandons the claim. Kornahrens v. Evatt, 66 F.3d 1350, 1357 (4th
Cir. 1995). Federal habeas review in this circumstance is inappropriate
because the inmate’s conviction in such a case is based on an “independent
and adequate state ground” since no federal constitutional claim was ever
Case 3:25-cv-00280-MR Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 7

5
presented to or reviewed by the state courts. Coleman v. Thompson, 501
U.S. 722, 729–30 (1991).
The Petitioner asserts that he has exhausted his state administrative
remedies by appealing his disciplinary offense conviction to the Deputy
Secretary of Institutions. [Doc. 1 at 5; Doc. 1-1 at 1]. Petitioner, however,
has provided no evidence showing that that he sought judicial review of his
federal habeas claims in state court before commencing this action. Instead,
Petitioner contends “N.C.R.Crim. / Civ. Proc. does [N]ot afford Appellate
Process.” [Doc. 1 at 5 (errors uncorrected)]. In making this statement, it
appears the Petitioner has mistaken the state’s procedural court rules for the
substantive law of North Carolina permitting aggrieved inmates to institute
judicial actions challenging prison disciplinary convictions. Exhaustion
requires the prisoner to present his federal claim(s) in state court to give the
state the opportunity to review and correct any alleged violations of the
prisoner's federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365-366 (1995).
Because a prisoner seeking federal habeas relief to restore forfeited
good-time credits is required to exhaust his state judicial remedies in addition
to his state administrative remedies, and because Petitioner has failed to
pursue any judicial post-conviction remedies, this exhaustion requirement
has not been fulfilled.
Case 3:25-cv-00280-MR Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 5 of 7

6
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court will dismiss the Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1] and this action without prejudice. Further, the Court
will deny as moot Petitioner’s Application To Proceed In District Court
Without Prepaying Fees Or Costs. [Doc. 2]. Finally, pursuant to Rule 11(a)
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this Court will decline to issue
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (in order to satisfy § 2253(c), a petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (when relief is denied on procedural
grounds, a petitioner must establish both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial
of a constitutional right).
O R D E R
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
2. The Petitioner’s Application To Proceed In District Court Without
Prepaying Fees Or Costs [Doc. 2] is DENIED as moot.
Case 3:25-cv-00280-MR Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 6 of 7

7
3. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of
appealability.
4. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 9, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-00280-MR Document 3 Filed 03/09/26 Page 7 of 7