Holloway v. M.D.O.C. et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 1/8/16. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
JASON RICKEY HOLLOWAY

PETITIONER

v.

No. 1:15CV176-SA-SAA

M.D.O.C., ET AL.

RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Jason Rickey Holloway for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In a document entitled “Motion to Stay,” the petitioner has
noted that he has yet to pursue his state court remedies to present his claims to the Mississippi
Supreme Court. For the reasons set forth below, the petitioner’s motion will be denied and will be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
Exhaustion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), a prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief must first exhaust state
remedies. Section 2254 provides, in relevant part:
(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that –
(A) the applicant has exhausted the state remedies available in the courts of
the State; or
(B) (i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the
rights of the appellant
...
(c) An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law
of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.
AA fundamental prerequisite to federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 is the exhaustion
of all claims in state court under ' 2254(b)(1) prior to requesting federal collateral relief.@ Sterling v.

Scott, 57 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982)). A finding of
exhaustion requires the petitioner to have Afairly presented the substance of his claims to the state
courts.@ Sones v. Hargett, 61 F.3d 410, 414-15 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Vela v. Estelle, 708 F.2d 954, 958
(5th Cir. 1983)). Further, exhaustion Arequires that normally a state prisoner=s entire federal habeas
petition must be dismissed unless the prisoner=s state remedies have been exhausted as to all claims
raised in the federal petition.@ Graham v. Johnson, 94 F.3d 958, 968 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Rose, 455
U.S. at 518-19). The exhaustion doctrine serves the salutary purpose of Agiving the state courts the
first opportunity to review the federal constitutional issues and to correct any errors made by the trial
courts, [and thus] >serves to minimize friction between our federal and state systems of justice.=@
Satterwhite v. Lynaugh, 886 F.2d 90, 92 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Rose, at 518) (citations omitted).
Mr. Holloway noted in the instant motion [5] that he has not exhausted his state court
remedies. He has requested that the court stay the case to permit him to pursue such an appeal, but he
has not provided a rationale for doing so. As the petitioner may still pursue a direct appeal, the instant
petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. The court
cautions the petitioner that the one-year federal habeas corpus limitations period has been running
during the pendency of this federal petition, and the petitioner needs to move with diligence to ensure
that he exhausts state remedies prior to the expiration of the federal habeas corpus deadline. A final
judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this, the 8th day of January, 2016.
/s/ Sharion Aycock_________
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-