Georgalis v. Dixon, 84-8808
| Decision Date | 13 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-8808,84-8808 |
| Citation | 776 F.2d 261 |
| Parties | Demetrius Cyrus GEORGALIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. District Attorney Donnie DIXON, et al., Respondents-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Demetrius Cyrus Georgalis, pro se.
Harry D. Dixon, Jr., Waycross, Ga., for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Before FAY, JOHNSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner appeals from an order of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He filed the writ in order to prevent the State of Georgia from trying him on certain criminal charges, maintaining that the State had violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U.S.C.App., by failing to extradite and try him within 120 days after a request was made.
Petitioner was originally arrested on a Georgia warrant on January 21, 1981. He posted bond but the warrant was later dismissed. On April 10, 1981, Georgia issued a second warrant, alleging the same crime, but a different date. In May of 1981, petitioner began serving a federal sentence at the prison camp at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. On May 26 of that year the District Attorney for the Waycross, Georgia Judicial Circuit requested a governor's warrant for extradition; the warrant was issued on June 4, 1981. Georgia took no action on the arrest warrant until August 10, 1982, when it filed a request for custody, providing that the prisoner would be tried within the statutory time contemplated by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. However, on August 20, 1982, the State of Georgia withdrew this request. 1
On August 3, 1983, the district court ordered the Warden of the Eglin Air Force Base Prison Camp not to comply with any Georgia detainer that had been lodged against the petitioner, but to release him upon expiration of his federal sentence. Petitioner was subsequently released from federal custody. 2 On September 11, 1984, the district court denied petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, primarily based upon the fact that he had failed to exhaust his available state remedies. We affirm.
A federal court will not grant habeas corpus relief unless the petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies. See Walker v. Zant, 693 F.2d 1087, 1088 (11th Cir.1982); see also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(b). In this case, the Georgia courts have not been given an opportunity to consider petitioner's allegations. Although petitioner apparently filed motions to discharge the detainer and thus bar prosecution in the state courts, no evidentiary hearing was ever held due to his failure to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the state court. Thus, it would appear that he has failed to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973). In Braden, the Court found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Florida
...court may not grant a § 2241 petition "unless the petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies." See Georgalis v. Dixon , 776 F.2d 261, 262 (11th Cir. 1985) ; see also Hughes v. Att'y Gen. of Fla. , 377 F.3d 1258, 1262 n.4 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that we apply the exhaustion r......
-
Sadler v. Bullard
...475 U.S. 1048 (1986); Darnell v. Swinney, 638 F. Supp. 526 (D. Nev. 1986), aff'd, 823 F.2d 299 (9th Cir. 1987); Georgalis v. Dixon, 776 F.2d 261, 262 (11th Cir. 1985). Because Petitioner's entrapment claim does not raise a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief, it should be denied.C. G......
-
Smith v. Merrell
...confinement may be heard in federal court, however, the inmate must first exhaust available state court remedies. Georgalis v. Dixon, 776 F.2d 261 (11th Cir. 1985); Walker v. Zant, 693 F.2d 1087 (11th Cir. 1982). An inmate cannot proceed on such a claim in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action so as to......
-
Ordaz-Machado v. Rivkind
...conviction in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without having first exhausted her state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; Georgalis v. Dixon, 776 F.2d 261 (11th Cir.1985). Since there is no evidence that petitioner attempted any relief in state court, this court cannot entertain petitioner's co......