ATES v. HOLT
ORDER ADOPTING 18 Report and Recommendations; GRANTING 11 Motion to Dismiss; DISMISSING 14 Motion for Injunction Relief, Motion to Proceed; and DISMISSING 16 Motion for Discovery. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 1/4/2017. (tlh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AHMED HOLT, Warden, et. al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-CV-22 (MTT)
28 U.S.C. § 2254
Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle recommends granting Respondent’s Motion
to Dismiss Petitioner’s federal habeas petition for failure to exhaust state court
remedies. Doc. 18. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge recommends Petitioner’s
remaining motions be denied. Doc. 18. Neither party has objected to the
Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Court
accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge. The Recommendation is ADOPTED and made the order of this Court.
In order to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner
must first exhaust his state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999); Vazquez v. Sec’y, Florida Dep’t of Corr., 827 F.3d
964, 966 (11th Cir. 2016). Here, Petitioner has failed to do so. Petitioner’s § 2254
petition challenges the revocation of his parole on March 19, 2015. Doc. 1. Petitioner
has previously filed two habeas petitions in state court challenging his revocation of
parole and voluntarily dismissed both petitions. Docs. 12-2; 12-3; 12-4; 12-5; 12-6.
Petitioner has also filed a third habeas petition challenging the revocation of his parole
in state court that is still pending.1 Doc. 17 at 3; Ates v. Holt, No. 16A-03025-1
(Gwinnett Super. Ct.). As a result, Petitioner has not yet fairly presented his habeas
claims before the state court and provided the state court an opportunity to review those
claims. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 848; McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th
Cir. 2005). Therefore, Petitioner’s habeas petition is barred by the exhaustion
requirement of § 2254(b). Petitioner has not demonstrated cause to avoid the
procedural bar for bringing a federal habeas action before fully presenting his claims to
the state court. See Singleton v. Barrow, 333 F. App'x 426, 428 (11th Cir. 2009); Isaacs
v. Head, 300 F.3d 1232, 1255 (11th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED and
Petitioner’s federal habeas petition is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state court
remedies. Additionally, Respondent’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 14 at 1-3),
Motion to Proceed (Doc. 14 at 4-6), and Motion for Discovery (Doc. 16) are
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of January, 2017.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Petitioner’s latest habeas petition was denied by the Superior Court on July 15, 2015 and is currently on
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?