Trujillo v. Director, TDCJ-CID
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL re 17 MOTION to Grant Respondent's Motion to Dismiss re 11 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support filed by Jonathan Trujillo, 11 MOTION to Dismiss with Brief in Support f iled by Director, TDCJ-CID. ORDERED that the Director's motion to dismiss (docket entry #11) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the Petitioner's motion to grant the Director's motion to dismiss (docket entry #17) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice. It is finally ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 1/19/2015. (kls, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JONATHAN TRUJILLO, #1838254
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14cv390
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner Jonathan Trujillo, an inmate confined in the Texas prison system, proceeding
pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
He filed the petition for the purpose of challenging his Hopkins County conviction for the offense
of delivery of marijuana in a drug free zone, Case No. 0920903. On November 20, 2014, the
Director filed a motion to dismiss the petition (docket entry #11) because it includes claims that
were unexhausted. The Petitioner responded by filing a motion to grant the Director’s motion to
dismiss (docket entry #17).
A state prisoner must exhaust all remedies available in state court before proceeding in
federal court unless circumstances exist which render the state corrective process ineffective to
protect the prisoner’s rights. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) & (c). In order to exhaust properly, he must
“fairly present” all of his claims to the state court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1981). This
means that the petitioner must have informed the state court system of the same facts and legal
theories upon which he bases his assertions in his federal habeas petition. Id. at 276-77; Dispensa
v. Lynaugh, 847 F.2d 211, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1988). “It is not enough that all the facts necessary
to support the federal claim were before the state courts . . . or that a somewhat similar state-law
claim was made.” Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (1982). Rather, the petitioner must have
presented the substance of his federal constitutional claim to the state courts. Id.; Picard, 404
U.S. at 513. The state court must have been apprised of all of the facts and legal theories upon
which the petitioner bases his assertions. Picard v. Connor, supra; Dispensa v. Lynaugh, 847
F.2d at 217; Rodriguez v. McKaskle, 724 F.2d 463 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1039 (1984).
In Texas, all claims must be presented to and ruled on by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429 (5th Cir. 1985); Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789 (5th Cir.
1993). When a petition includes claims that have been exhausted along with claims that have not
been exhausted, which is referred to as a “mixed petition,” then the entire petition must be
dismissed for failure to exhaust. Galtieri v. Wainwright, 582 F.2d 348, 355 (5th Cir. 1978) (en
In the present case, the Director appropriately characterized the present petition as a mixed
petition and argued that the case should be dismissed. The Petitioner agreed. The Court finds
the arguments persuasive and that the petition should be dismissed. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Director’s motion to dismiss (docket entry #11) is GRANTED. It
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s motion to grant the Director’s motion to dismiss (docket
entry #17) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without
prejudice. It is finally
ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are DENIED.
SIGNED this 19th day of January, 2015.
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?