Saddler v. Circuit Court of Lowndes County
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 5 Order Dismissing Case. Signed by Glen H. Davidson on 5/14/12. (mhg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
i PETITIONER
DOMINICO SADDLER
NO. i:12CV078-D-A
V.
CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY
kSPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner, an
inmate currently housed in the Lowndes County Detention Center, files this matt¢r pursuant to 28
U.S.c. § 2254. Petitioner complains about a state conviction arising out of a Jomestic dispute.
Noticeably absent from the pleadings, however, is any proof or allegation that Petitioner has
;
presented his claim to the State's highest court.
After carefully considering the contents of the pro se petition and giving it the liberal
!
construction required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this court has com¢ to the following
conclusion.
.
!
1
It is well-settled that a state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief in federal court is first
!
required to exhaust his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) and (c);lsee also Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). An applicant "shall not be deemed to have
exhau~ed
the remedies
I
!
available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of [§ 2254] ifhe has the ri$ht under the law
of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c).
Thus, it is a fundamental prerequisite to federal habeas relief that a petitioner exhaust all his claims
in state court prior to seeking federal collateral relief. Sterling v. Scott, 57 F.3d 4151,453 (5th Cir.
1995).
To satisfY this requirement, the petitioner "must give the state courts an dpportunity to act
i
on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas petition." 0 'Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). Accordingly, "when a prisoner alleges tHat his continued
confinement for a state court conviction violates federal law, the state courts should have the first
opportunity to review this claim and provide any necessary relief." Id at 844.
Petitioner's complaint is premature. Before relief may be granted in a federW habeas petition
i
under § 2254, he must exhaust available state court remedies. See Miss. Code Aim. §§ 99-39-1 et
seq. It is clear, Petitioner has not presented his claims to the State's highest coum. Therefore, his
I
petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
A final judgment in ~ordance with this opinion will be entered.
THIS the
/
t
day of May, 2012.
.
Jf jJSJ'AA-f2L
SEN
JUDGE
i
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COllIRT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISS~SSIPPI
2
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?