Cain v. Walls et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 7 Judgment. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 5/31/12. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
DEXTER AUSTIN CAIN

PETITIONER

V.

NO. 2:12CV072-M-A

JOHNNIE E. WALLS, JR.

RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner, an
inmate currently in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, files this matter
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner complains about his incarceration for a probation violation
for which he is seeking release and compensation. Noticeably absent from the pleadings, however,
is any proof or allegation that Petitioner has presented his claims 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 come to the following
conclusion.
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); see also Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). An applicant “shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies
available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of [§ 2254] if he has the right 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 451, 453 (5th Cir.
1995).
To satisfy this requirement, the petitioner “must give the state courts an opportunity to act
on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas petition.” O’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 federal habeas petition
under § 2254, he must exhaust available state court remedies. See Miss. Code Ann. §§ 99-39-1 et
seq. It is clear that Petitioner has not presented his claims to the State’s highest court. Therefore,
the petition will be dismissed without prejudice.
A final judgment in accordance with this opinion will be entered.
THIS the 31st day of May, 2012.

/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

2