Jenkins v. The State of Virginia

W.D. Virginia

Jenkins v. The State of Virginia

DecidedAugust 26, 2025

Docket7:25-cv-00540

StatusUnknown

This text of Jenkins v. The State of Virginia (Jenkins v. The State of Virginia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jenkins v. The State of Virginia, (W.D. Va. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COUR’ AT on VA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, RUSS 20: 2028 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION st Beeson □□

John Matthew Jenkins, ) Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00540 The State of Virginia ef al, Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner John Matthew Jenkins, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 1.) He contends that he is being wrongfully detained in Virginia. Federal courts cannot consider habeas petitions until the claims asserted have been exhausted. Brown v. Keohane, 475 F. Supp. 943, 944 (E.D. Va. 1979). Exhaustion requires that the issue be presented to the state’s highest court and considered on the merits. O’Sw/ivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-45 (1999). “Put another way, Petitioner cannot directly seek federal court review of a state prison administrative grievance—as a matter of federal law, and based on principles of federalism and comity—without going through the state court system.” Urias v. Soto, No. CV 15-772 VBF MRW, 2015 WL 3901653, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2015). Jenkins’s Petition states that he has not exhausted any state court remedies, specifying that he neither appealed nor pursued any state court post-conviction proceedings prior to submitting this federal habeas action. (Dkt. 1 at 2, 5-8, 11-12.) Therefore, at this time,

Jenkins’s claims are unexhausted and premature for this court’s consideration. His claims must be dismissed without prejudice, preserving his right to refile in federal court after state court exhaustion is complete. Brown, 475 P. Supp. at 944. For this reason, the court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk 1s DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Jenkins. ENTERED this 26th day of August 2025.

firs Apo HON. JASMINE YOON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COUR’ AT on VA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, RUSS 20: 2028 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION st Beeson □□

John Matthew Jenkins, ) Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00540 The State of Virginia ef al, Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner John Matthew Jenkins, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 1.) He contends that he is being wrongfully detained in Virginia. Federal courts cannot consider habeas petitions until the claims asserted have been exhausted. Brown v. Keohane, 475 F. Supp. 943, 944 (E.D. Va. 1979). Exhaustion requires that the issue be presented to the state’s highest court and considered on the merits. O’Sw/ivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-45 (1999). “Put another way, Petitioner cannot directly seek federal court review of a state prison administrative grievance—as a matter of federal law, and based on principles of federalism and comity—without going through the state court system.” Urias v. Soto, No. CV 15-772 VBF MRW, 2015 WL 3901653, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 18, 2015). Jenkins’s Petition states that he has not exhausted any state court remedies, specifying that he neither appealed nor pursued any state court post-conviction proceedings prior to submitting this federal habeas action. (Dkt. 1 at 2, 5-8, 11-12.) Therefore, at this time,

Jenkins’s claims are unexhausted and premature for this court’s consideration. His claims must be dismissed without prejudice, preserving his right to refile in federal court after state court exhaustion is complete. Brown, 475 P. Supp. at 944. For this reason, the court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. The Clerk 1s DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Jenkins. ENTERED this 26th day of August 2025.

firs Apo HON. JASMINE YOON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jenkins v. The State of Virginia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-the-state-of-virginia-vawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack