United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
se prisoner Jerry Lee Clark has returned to this Court
seeking redress for his allegedly improper arrest and
detention. See doc. 1. He earlier made similar
allegations in both a habeas petition and a suit filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compare id.,
with Clark v. Unknown, CV417-171, doc. 1 (S.D. Ga.
Sept. 1, 2017), and Clark v. Wilcher, CV417-161,
doc. 1 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 31, 2017). He again seems to seek both
habeas and monetary relief. See doc. 1 at 6 (seeking
both dismissal of the state criminal charges he currently
faces and compensation of “$1, 000.00 per month that I
have been incarcerated from Oct. 11, 2015 up until April 11,
2018.”). He also seeks to pursue this case in forma
pauperis. Doc. 2.
extent that he seeks habeas relief,  and for jurisdictional
purposes only, the Court GRANTS his motion
to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. But because it
“plainly appears from the petition” that he
“is not entitled to relief in the district court,
” his petition should be summarily dismissed. Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases.
states that he was guilty-plea convicted in Chatham County
Superior Court on January 8, 2018. Doc. 1 at 1. He does not
allege that he has appealed or sought state habeas relief,
however. “[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts
one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by
invoking one complete round of the State's established
appellate review process.” O'Sullian v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); see also Mason
v. Allen, 605 F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Boerckel). Clark, by his own admission, has yet to
do that. Before seeking habeas relief on his state
conviction in this Court, he must exhaust his available
remedies, either through a direct appeal or a state habeas
proceeding. See, e.g., Sones v. Hargett, 61 F.3d
410, 415 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Brown v. Allen, 344
U.S. 442, 448 n. 3 (1953); 17A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R.
Miller, et al., Federal Prac. & Proc. §
4264 (“[I]t is well settled that § 2254 is
satisfied if the federal issue has once been properly
presented to the highest court of the state.”). Put
another way, he must be sure that he has exploited “the
right under the law of the State to raise, by any
available procedure, the question presented.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(c) (emphasis added). To the extent that he seeks
habeas relief from this Court, the petition should be
DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of
the Certificate of Appealability (COA) standards, which are
set forth in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872
at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009), the Court discerns no
COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA
should issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Alexander
v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (approving
sua sponte denial of COA before movant filed a
notice of appeal). And, as there are no non-frivolous issues
to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good
faith. Thus, in forma pauperis status on appeal
should likewise be DENIED. 28 U.S.C. §
Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the
district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3.
Within 14 days of service, any party may file written
objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on
all parties. The document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 Fed.Appx. 542,
545 (11th Cir. 2015).
REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 The Court will address Clark's
claims for monetary relief by separate Order. To that end,
the Clerk is DIRECTED to open a separate
civil case with Clark listed as the plaintiff and the present
respondents listed as defendants. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 21 (“The Court may . . . sever any claim against a
party.”). The Clerk is further
DIRECTED to docket copies of Doc. 1, labeled
as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint, doc. 2, and a copy of
this Order into the new case. Any further filing from Clark
related to his habeas petition should be filed into this case
(CV418-093). Any further filing related to his § 1983
claims should be filed into the new case.
 It is possible that Clark intended to
file this as his state habeas petition. The first page of
this petition appears to be from a state-court habeas form,
and it is captioned for the Superior Court of Chatham County.
Doc. 1 at 1. The second and subsequent pages appear to be
from this Court's form § 1983 Complaint.
See doc. 1 at 2-6.
 A stay of this case is also not
warranted, as petitioner has made no showing of “good
cause” for his “failure to exhaust his claims
first in state court.” Rhines v. ...