Robinson v. Hughes, et al (INMATE 3)

Filing 15

ORDER directing that on or before December 22, 2011, the petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE why his habeas corpus petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and for the other reasons asserted by the respondents. Signed by Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr on 12/1/11. (scn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES ROBINSON,
Petitioner,
v.
ANDY HUGHES, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:11cv841-TMH
(WO)

ORDER
The respondents have filed an answer in which they contend that the present habeas
corpus petition is due to be denied because the claims presented by the petitioner provide no
basis for relief. (Doc. No. 14.) Specifically, the respondents argue that
(1) the petitioner’s claim that the Houston County Circuit Court lacks
jurisdiction over his public intoxication charge presents a question of state law
that is not cognizable in a federal habeas petition and, in any event, amounts
to a bare, unsupported allegation;
(2) the petitioner’s claim that he was denied a preliminary hearing is not
cognizable in a federal habeas petition because it does not present a
constitutional issue;
(3) the petitioner’s challenge to the conditions of his confinement is
properly raised in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and not in a
federal habeas petition;
(4) the petitioner’s claim that this court should investigate other inmate
cases is not cognizable in a federal habeas petition; and
(5) the petitioner has failed to exhaust his claims that
(a) he was illegally arrested;

(b) he has been denied effective assistance of counsel;
(c) the State denied him access to the courts by failing to
transport him to his preliminary hearing; and
(d) he has been denied access to the courts to have his
alleged constitutional violations addressed.
A state pretrial detainee is entitled to raise constitutional claims in a federal habeas
proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if two requirements are satisfied. First, the petitioner
must be in custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th
Cir. 1987). Petitioner is apparently currently incarcerated and awaiting trial on criminal
charges pending against him in the Circuit Court for Houston County, Alabama. He, thus,
satisfies the “in custody” requirement for purposes of § 2241. Secondly, the petitioner must
have exhausted his available state remedies.1 State remedies are ordinarily not considered
exhausted so long as a petitioner may effectively present his claims to the state courts by any
currently available and adequate procedure. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Ct. of Ky., 410
U.S. 484, 489 (1973). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c), a petitioner “shall not be deemed to
have exhausted the remedies available in the court of the State ..., if he has the right under
the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” Typically,

1

Although the statutory language of § 2241 itself does not contain an exhaustion requirement,
this Circuit has determined that the requirements of § 2254, including exhaustion of state remedies,
apply to a subset of petitioners to whom § 2241(c)(3) applies, i.e., those who are “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See Medberry v. Crosby, 351
F.3d 1049, 1059 (11th Cir. 2003); Dill v. Holt, 371 F.3d 1301, 1303 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Braden
v. 30th Judicial Circuit Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-92 (1973); Brown v. Estelle, 530 F.2d 1280,
1284 (5th Cir. 1976).

2

in order to exhaust, a petitioner must fairly apprise the highest state court of the federal rights
that were allegedly violated. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 828, 845 (1999);
Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 1985).
Upon review of the pleadings in this case, it appears that the petitioner has not yet
exhausted his available state court remedies with respect to each of the claims presented in
his petition for habeas corpus relief. This court does not deem it appropriate to rule on the
merits of the petitioner’s claims without first requiring that he exhaust state remedies. See
28 U.S.C. § 2254(1)(b)(2). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that on or before December 22, 2011, the petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE
why his habeas corpus petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies
and for the other reasons asserted by the respondents.
Done this 1st day of December, 2011.

/s/Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3