Wright v. State of Mississippi et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 3 Final Judgment. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 11/5/13. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
LARSON WRIGHT,
PETITIONER
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:13cv273-M-A
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, et al.,
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner
Larson Wright, a Mississippi inmate currently confined at the Walnut Grove Correctional Facility,
has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he seeks
to challenge the revocation of his probation. Having considered Petitioner’s allegations and the
applicable law, the Court determines that the instant petition should be dismissed for the following
reasons.
Background
In the instant petition, Petitioner provides no details as to the crime(s) that led to his
incarceration.1 He reports only that his probation was revoked on February 21, 2013, and that a
judge sentenced him to a ten-year term of imprisonment. He concedes that he did not file an
appeal or otherwise seek review of the judge=s decision prior to filing the instant § 2254 petition on
1
Offender information gleaned from using the AInmate Search@ feature of the Mississippi
Department of Correction=s website indicates Petitioner is serving a ten year sentence following a
conviction for armed robbery. See http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/ (follow AInmate Search@
hyperlink; search ALarson Wright@) (last visited November 5, 2013).
1
or about November 4, 2013. In his petition, Petitioner maintains that he is innocent of the crimes
for which his probation was revoked and argues that his revocation was unlawful. (See ECF no.
1, 6).
Discussion
A prisoner must exhaust his available state court remedies before filing for federal habeas
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c); O=Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 840 (1999). The
exhaustion requirement is satisfied when the habeas claim has been presented to the highest state
court in a procedurally proper manner. Nobles v. Johnson, 127 F.3d 409, 420 (5th Cir. 1997). If
a prisoner fails to exhaust his claims prior to seeking federal habeas relief, his federal habeas
petition must ordinarily be dismissed. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); see
also Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 157, 178-79 (2001) (AThe exhaustion requirement of § 2254(b)
ensures that the state courts have the opportunity fully to consider federal-law challenges to a state
custodial judgment before the lower federal courts may entertain a collateral attack upon that
judgment.@).
Petitioner clearly states that he has not pursued his federal habeas claims in the State
courts. The Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act provides a method for an
inmate to challenge the revocation of his probation. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-5(1)(h); see
also Walker v. State, 35 So. 3d 555 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). Therefore, Petitioner has an available
avenue through which to challenge the revocation of his probation, and this action must be
dismissed for Petitioner=s failure to exhaust his State court remedies. Petitioner is advised that, in
order to exhaust his State court remedies, he must file a petition for post-conviction relief in the
Circuit Court of Tallahatchie County and appeal any adverse decision to the Mississippi Supreme
Court. See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-7.
2
In some Alimited circumstances,@ courts may hold a habeas petition in abeyance while the
petitioner exhausts his state court remedies. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005).
However, the Court notes that the federal one-year statute of limitations will be tolled during the
pendency of a properly filed State court post-conviction motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Accordingly, Petitioner has sufficient time within which to exhaust his claims in State court and
return to federal court if necessary, provided that he acts with diligence in pursuing his claims in
State court. Accordingly, no good cause exists to order a stay and abeyance in this matter.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition [ECF no. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DISMISSED as moot. A final judgment consistent
with this memorandum opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of November, 2013.
/s/ Michael P. Mills
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
3
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?