Anderson v. State of Mississippi

Filing 8

ORDER: For the reasons set out in the order, this pro se petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied. A judgment will be entered in a separate docket entry to follow. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on January 29, 2016.(SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL T. ANDERSON, #17634

PETITIONER

VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15cv894-DPJ-LRA

WARDEN TURNER

RESPONDENT
ORDER

This cause is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner
Michael T. Anderson, an inmate of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), brings
this pro se petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court, having
liberally construed the pleadings in consideration with the applicable law, finds that this case
should be dismissed.
I.

Background
Petitioner is challenging his convictions for murder, aggravated assault, and felon in

possession of a weapon rendered by the Hinds County Circuit Court. Petitioner is serving three
life sentences without the possibility of parole in the custody of the MDOC.
The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions on November 19, 2015.
Pet. [1] at 2–3. Petitioner’s counsel filed a motion for rehearing on December 3, 2015, and this
motion is pending before the Mississippi Supreme Court. See Resp. [6] at 1; Anderson v. State
of Miss., No. 2012-CT-01066-SCT, Motion for Rehearing #2015-5366 (filed Dec. 3, 2015).
II.

Discussion
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). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the substance of the federal claim must have been

fairly presented to the highest state court. Soffar v. Dretke, 368 F.3d 441, 465 (5th Cir. 2004). A
petitioner must “afford the state court a fair opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to
facts bearing upon his constitutional claim.” Johnson v. Cain, 712 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2013)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Since Petitioner’s direct appeal is currently pending before the Mississippi Supreme
Court, it is clear that he 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 for
Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his available state remedies. See Sam v. Louisiana, 409 F. App’x
758, 763 (5th Cir. 2011) (“A federal district court may not adjudicate a habeas petition unless all
claims in the petition are exhausted.”).
III.

Conclusion

The Court has considered the pleadings and applicable law. For the reasons stated,
this pro se petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied. A final
judgment will be entered in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 29th day of January, 2016.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2