Roberts v. State of Mississippi
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Dismissing without Prejudice based on Petitioners failure to exhaust his state court remedies. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 5/26/16 (MGB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JAFRON LEMUEL ROBERTS
PETITIONER
VERSUS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-cv-875-CWR-FKB
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, et al.
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner Jafron
Lemuel Roberts, an inmate at the Lauderdale County Detention Center, Meridian, Mississippi, files
this Petition [1] for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Order [19]. Having
considered the Petition [1], Petitioner’s Response [20], applicable case law and statutes, the Court
finds that Petitioner’s claims fail to warrant federal habeas corpus relief because Petitioner has not
exhausted his state court remedies.
Petitioner was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Mississippi, on March
24, 2016, of statutory rape and kidnaping. Pet’r’s Resp. [20] at 2. Petitioner’s Response [20]
indicates that he is challenging his conviction on the grounds that his Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights have been violated. Specifically, Petitioner argues that his right to a speedy trial
was violated. Id. at 1-3. Liberally construing Petitioner’s Response [20], the Court finds that
Petitioner, in an effort to inform the Court of the steps he has taken to exhaust his available state
court remedies, represents that a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or alternatively,
Motion for New Trial will be filed. See Pet’r’s Resp. [20] at 4.
Pursuant to 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)). A petitioner must exhaust his claims
through the state courts either by direct appeal or by post-conviction proceedings. See Orman v.
Cain, 228 F.3d 616, 619-20 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, in order to satisfy the exhaustion
requirement, the 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 will be 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)).
According to Petitioner, “[a]t this time . . . , there is one motion I know that’s going to be
filed and that is a Motion for Judg[]ment Notwithstanding the Verdict, or alternatively, Motion for
New Trial, which will be filed ten days from this the 5th of May.” Pet’r’s Resp. [20] at 4. Clearly,
Petitioner is in the process of filing post-conviction motions with the trial court. Based on
Petitioner’s Response [20], the Court finds that Petitioner has not given the “state courts one full
opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s
established appellate review process.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); see also
28 U.S.C. § 2254(c) (providing that a petitioner “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”). Once the trial court
rules on his motion and in the event he is denied relief, he may appeal to the Mississippi appellate
courts and properly exhaust his state court remedies.1 See Miss. Code Ann. § 99-39-25; see also
Harris v. State, 174 So.3d 314 (Miss. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2015) (considering Harris’ appeal of the
1
If Petitioner presents new legal theories or new factual claims in his federal habeas petition, the exhaustion
requirement is not satisfied. Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 387 (5th Cir. 1998); Nobles v. Johnson, 127 F.3d 409,
420 (5th Cir. 1997).
2
denial of his post-conviction motion by the trial court and his argument that his right to a speedy trial
was violated).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that Petitioner has not exhausted his available
state court remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and (c) and Petitioner’s request for
habeas relief will be denied for failure to exhaust his state court remedies.
Petitioner’s request for habeas relief is denied and the petition is dismissed without prejudice
based on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state court remedies.
A Final Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum Opinion and Order will be issued
this date.
SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of May, 2016.
s/Carlton W. Reeves
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?