Hines v. Boyd et al (INMATE 3)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ronald Hines be dismissed without prejudice to afford Hines an opportunity to exhaust all state court remedies available to him. Objections to R&R due by 12/28/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr. on 12/14/2009. (dmn)
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 R O N A L D HINES, # 156086, P e titio n e r, v LOUIS BOYD, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 2:09cv962-TMH (WO)
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE T h is cause is before the court on a pro se petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed on October 13, 2009, by state inmate Ronald Hines ("Hines"). (D o c . No. 1.) In his petition, Hines challenges his guilty plea conviction for unlawful p o s s e ss io n of a controlled substance entered against him in 2009 by the Circuit Court of C o v in g to n County, Alabama. Specifically, he attacks his competency to enter his guilty plea P u rsu a n t to this court's orders, the respondents filed an answer to Hines's petition in w h ic h they argue that Hines has failed to exhaust his state remedies with respect to each of th e claims presented in his habeas petition. (Doc. No. 7.) Specifically, the respondents m a in ta in that Hines has pending in the trial court both a motion to withdraw his guilty plea a n d a state post-conviction petition filed pursuant to Ala.R.Crim.P. 32. This court entered a n order directing Hines to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for his f a ilu re to exhaust state remedies. (Doc. No. 8.) However, Hines has filed nothing in resp o n se to the court's order.
D IS C U S S IO N The 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); see O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 839 (1999) ("Federal h a b e a s relief is available to state prisoners only after they have exhausted their claims in state c o u rt. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b)(1), (c)."). "An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted t h e remedies available in the courts of the State ... if he has the right under the law of the S tate to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). In order to fully exhaust state remedies, "state prisoners must give the state courts one full o p p o rtu n ity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the S ta te 's established appellate review process." O'Sullivan, supra, 526 U.S. at 845. Here, the respondents maintain that Hines has pending in the state trial court a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and a post-conviction petition filed pursuant to Ala.R.Crim.P. 32. H in e s does not state otherwise. It thus appears that Hines has not yet exhausted his state c o u rt remedies with respect to the claims presented in his federal petition. This court does n o t deem it appropriate to rule on the merits of Hines's claims without first requiring thatshe e x h a u s t state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(1)(b)(2). Consequently, the court concludes th a t the petition for habeas corpus relief should be dismissed without prejudice so that Hines c a n exhaust his available state court remedies.
C O N C L U SIO N A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the petition f o r habeas corpus relief be dismissed without prejudice to afford Hines an opportunity to e x h a u st all state court remedies available to him. It is further O R D E R E D that the parties shall file any objections to this Recommendation on or b e f o re December 28, 2009. A party must specifically identify the findings in the
R e c o m m e n d a tio n to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general objections w ill not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's proposed f in d in g s and recommendations shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District C o u rt of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on a p p e a l factual findings accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of p lain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 th Cir. 1982). See S te in v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11 th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of P r ic h a r d , 661 F.2d 1206 (11 th Cir. 1981) (en banc) D o n e this 14 th day of December, 2009.
/s/Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?