Givhan v. Albright et al (INMATE3)

Filing 10

ORDERED that on or before 4/7/2009, Petitioner shall show cause why her 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 3/24/2009. (cb, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION B R E N D A JOYCE GIVHAN, # 133055 P e titio n e r, v. FRANK ALBRIGHT, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 2:09cv56-TMH (WO)

ORDER T h is cause is before the court on a petition for habeas corpus relief in which P e titio n e r, a state inmate, challenges a sentence imposed upon her by the Circuit Court for M o n tg o m e ry County, Alabama, a state trial court. Through her petition, Petitioner seeks an aw ard of jail credit from the aforementioned state court. In their answer filed with this court o n March 23, 2009 (Doc. No. 9), Respondents assert that Petitioner has failed to exhaust state c o u rt remedies with respect to the claims presented in her habeas petition. Specifically, R e sp o n d e n ts allege that Petitioner has not pursued any state post-conviction proceedings c h a lle n g in g her sentence although she has an available state remedy through Rule 32 of the A la b a m a Rules of Criminal Procedure. T h e law directs that a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by "a person in custody p u rs u a n t to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the

a p p lic a n t has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the [convicting] State...." 28 U .S .C . § 2254(1)(b)(1)(A). Upon review of the pleadings filed in this case, it appears that P e titio n e r has not yet exhausted her available state court remedies with respect to each of the c laim s presented in her petition for habeas corpus relief. This court does not deem it a p p ro p ria te to rule on the merits of Petitioner's claims without first requiring that Petitioner e x h a u s t state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(1)(b)(2). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that on or before April 7, 2009, Petitioner shall show cause why her p e t itio n should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. D o n e this 24 th day of March, 2009.

/s/Charles S. Coody. CHARLES S. COODY U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2