Garmon v. Dismukes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:24-cv-00930-MR
CHARLES LEON GARMON, )
)
Petitioner, )
) MEMORANDUM OF
vs. ) DECISION AND ORDER
)
LESLIE COOLEY DISMUKES1, )
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
Charles Leon Garmon (herein “Petitioner”) on October 21, 2024. [Doc. 1].
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of North Carolina. [Doc. 1 at 1]. The
Petitioner was convicted in Union County Superior Court on January 5, 2009,
based upon his plea of guilty to one count of indecent liberties with a minor.
1 Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts requires that “the petition must name as respondent the state officer who has
custody” of the petitioner. Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In North Carolina, the
Secretary of the Department of Adult Correction is the custodian of all state inmates. See
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 148-4 (2023). Accordingly, Leslie Cooley Dismukes, the current
Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction, is now the proper
Respondent.
Case 3:24-cv-00930-MR Document 2 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 4

2
[Id.]. According to the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction
Database, Petitioner received a suspended sentence and probation.2 On
April 1, 2009, Petitioner’s probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to
an active term of 19 to 23 months imprisonment. [NCDAC Database at 5].
Petitioner was released from custody based on that conviction on May 13,
2010, when his sentence expired on that date. [Id.].
The Petitioner filed no direct appeal from his indecent liberties
conviction. [Doc. 1 at 2]. Likewise, the Petitioner did not file any post-
conviction collateral litigation. [Id. at 3]. The Petitioner filed his Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court on October 21, 2024, raising three state-
law related claims. [Id. at pp. 5-12]. Ultimately, the Petitioner seeks as relief
from this Court that his state sex offender registration requirement be
terminated.
The Petitioner is now incarcerated pursuant to an entirely different
judgment.
II. DISCUSSION
A federal district court may only entertain an application for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 if the applicant is in custody pursuant
2 See https://webapps.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=
0732593&searchOffenderId=0732593&searchDOBRange=0&listurl=pagelistoffendersea
rchresults&listpage=1(herein “NCDAC Database”); Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Case 3:24-cv-00930-MR Document 2 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 4

3
to the judgment of a state court. Id. Even though the Petitioner is presently
in custody, he is no longer in custody pursuant to the judgment of the state
court about which complains. Petitioner’s sentence for his Union County
indecent liberties conviction has long since expired. [NCDAC Database at 5].
In reviewing a § 2254 petition, this 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.
Because the Petitioner’s state court judgment has terminated, Petitioner’s
instant action challenging the now-expired Union County indecent liberties
conviction would provide him no relief and therefore must be dismissed.3
III. CONCLUSION
The Court will deny the Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus [Doc. 1] and dismiss this action. 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
3 Petitioner’s § 2254 petition is subject to dismissal for two additional reasons: first, the
petition was filed beyond the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1); and second,
the petition only raises state-law related claims. A federal court may not grant § 2254 relief
as to any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court’s
adjudication of such claim resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Case 3:24-cv-00930-MR Document 2 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 4

4
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 DENIED and
DISMISSED.
2. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of
appealability.
3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to substitute Leslie
Cooley Dismukes as the Respondent in this action.
4. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 21, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-00930-MR Document 2 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 4