Lewis v. Central Mississippi Correctional Facility
Filing
8
Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing case without prejudice. A separate Judgment shall be entered. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on July 16, 2014 (dsl)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER THOMAS LEWIS, #49732
VERSUS
PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-cv-235-KS-MTP
CENTRAL MISSISSIPPI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner
Lewis, an inmate of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), files this pro se
petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Upon liberal review of the
Petitioner’s pleadings and applicable case law, the Court finds as follows.
Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery in the Circuit Court of Harrison County,
Mississippi, on January 26, 2012. Pet. [1] at 1; see also Lewis v. State, No. 2012-CT-00395
(Miss. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2013). As ground for habeas relief, Petitioner claims the following:
GROUND 1: Misidentification - The perpetrator had on a ski mask [so] all the
victim could see was the suspect[‘]s eyes yet she is 100% certain it was petitioner
that robbed her.
GROUND 2: Double jeopardy - There was not a manifest necessity to declare a
mistrial based on 1 juror[‘]s not guilty verdict.
GROUND 3: Due process violations.
GROUND 4: Ineffective assistance of counsel.
Pet. [1] at 5, 7, 8, and 10. Petitioner is requesting a new trial or in the alternative an acquittal. Id.
at 15.
As required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the Court has liberally construed
Petitioner’s allegations and determined that this petition for habeas relief should be dismissed for
Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state remedies.
It is a fundamental prerequisite to federal habeas relief that a petitioner exhaust all of his
claims in state courts prior to requesting federal collateral relief. Sterling v. Scott, 57 F.3d 451,
453 (5th Cir.1995). “Applicants seeking federal habeas relief under § 2254 are required to
exhaust all claims in state court prior to requesting federal collateral relief.” Fisher v. Texas, 169
F.3d 295, 302 (5th Cir.1999). Title 28, Section 2254 of the United States Code provides in part
as follows:
(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 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 applicant.
*********
(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.
To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, Petitioner must present his claims to the state’s
highest court in a procedurally proper manner in order to provide the state courts with a fair
opportunity to consider and pass upon the claims. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842
(1999). “The exhaustion requirement is satisfied when the substance of the federal habeas claim
has been fairly presented to the highest state court.” Fisher, 169 F.3d at 302.
Petitioner states on pages 6, 7, 9, and 10 of his Petition [1] that he has an application to
proceed in the state trial court for post-conviction relief currently pending before the Mississippi
2
Supreme Court. See Lewis v. State, No. 2014-M-0593 (Miss. Ct. App. filed May 6, 2014).
Based on Petitioner’s pending application, the Court finds that Petitioner has not completed the
exhaustion of his state remedies prior to filing this habeas petition. As such, this petition filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 will be dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to
exhaust his available state remedies. See Sam v. Louisiana, 409 F. App’x 758, 763 (5th Cir.
2011)(holding that “[a] federal district court may not adjudicate a habeas petition unless all
claims in the petition are exhausted.”).
For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner’s pro se Petition for habeas corpus relief will be
denied for failure to exhaust and this case will be dismissed without prejudice. A Final
Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order will be entered.
This the 16th day of July, 2014.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?