Hoskins v. Epps

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 4/25/2012 (SM)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
CEDRIC LAMAR HOSKINS, #150792
VERSUS

PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-105-HTW-LRA

CHRISTOPHER EPPS

RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner
Cedric Lamar Hoskins, an inmate at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution, Leakesville,
Mississippi, filed this petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner states that he pled guilty to raping a child in July 2009 in the Circuit Court of
Rankin County, Mississippi. Pet. [1 & 1-1] at 1. As a result, petitioner received a 20-year
sentence with seven years to serve in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.
Id.
Because petitioner failed to provide the grounds upon which he is basing his request for
habeas relief and he failed to provide information establishing that he had exhausted his state
court remedies, other than stating he was filing a motion for post-conviction relief, an order [6]
was entered on March 6, 2012, directing him to file a response and provide additional
information concerning these matters. Pet. [1]. Petitioner filed his response [9] on April 11,
2012. In his response [9], petitioner only states that his ground for habeas relief is that he is
being “maliciously confine[d] and endanger[ed]” as a result of his Sixth and Eighth Amendment
rights being violated. As for the steps he has taken to exhaust his state court remedies, Petitioner
states that even though he has filed numerous requests for administrative remedies he has not
received a response from the prison officials concerning his requests. Resp. [9].

After reviewing petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief and response [9] and
applying a liberal construction as required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the Court
has come to the following conclusions.
Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), "a defendant must exhaust all claims in state
court prior to requesting federal collateral relief." Smith v. Quarterman, 515 F.3d 392, 400 (5th
Cir. 2008)(citing Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 263 (5th Cir. 2001). In order to meet the
exhaustion requirement of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), the habeas claim must have been fairly
presented to the highest state court. Morris v. Dretke, 379 F.3d 199, 204 (5th Cir. 2004)(citing
Mercadel v. Cain, 179 F.3d 271, 275 (5th Cir. 1999)). As a general matter, a habeas petition is
dismissed when the petitioner has not exhausted his claims in state court. See Smith, 515 F.3d at
400 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519-20 (1982)).
Under Mississippi law, petitioner does not have a right to a direct appeal to the
Mississippi Supreme Court since he pled guilty. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-35-101 (1972).
Petitioner does, however, have an available state remedy under the Mississippi Post-Conviction
Collateral Relief Act, Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 99-39-1 to -29 (1972). Petitioner has three
years after the entry of judgment of the conviction to file a motion under this statute. Miss. Code
Ann. §§ 99-39-5 (2) (1972), as amended. Petitioner states that he was convicted in July 2009,
and is clearly within the time period to file such a motion. Because Petitioner has not
demonstrated that he has exhausted his available state court remedies through the Mississippi
Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act, this Court finds that Petitioner has not met the exhaustion
requirement of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and (c). Therefore, Petitioner's request for
habeas relief is denied for failure to exhaust his state court remedies which are available to him.
Consequently, as discussed above, Petitioner’s request for habeas relief is dismissed
2

without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust his state court remedies.
A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order will be
issued this date.
This the 25th day of April, 2012.

s/ HENRY T. WINGATE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Memorandum Opinion and Order
Civil action no. 3:12-cv-105-HTW-LRA 3