Davis v. Valdez

Filing 7

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Magistrate Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. Judge Jeff Kaplan no longer assigned to case. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 12/19/2008) (mfw)

IN THEUNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT TEXAS OF D A L L A SDIVISION
B E N J A M I NDAVIS Petitioner, VS. SHERIFF LUPEVALDEZ Respondent.

s
$ $ $

$ $ $ $ $

NO.3-08-CV-2rr6-G

F I N D I N G S AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE U N I T E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Petitioner Benjamin Davis, a Texas prisoner, has filed an application for writ of habeas c o r p u s pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 224I. For the reasonsstatedherein, the application should be d i s m i s s e dwithout prejudicefor failure to exhauststateremedies. I. in P e t i t i o n e ris currently incarcerated the Dallas County Jail awaiting trial for aggravated r o b b e r y and evadingarrest. On November 24,2008, petitionerfiled this action in federaldistrict court alleging that he has beendenied a speedytrial. After reviewing hispro se writ, the court sent written interrogatoriesto petitioner in order to determinewhether this claim was presentedto the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a procedurally correct manner. Petitioner answered the that i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s December17,2008. The courtnow determines this caseshouldbe summarily on d i s m i s s e dfor failure to exhauststateremedies.

II. A pretrial detaineemust fully exhaustavailablestateremediesbefore seekingfederal habeas (198D.1 r e l i e f .See Louisiana,8l6F.2d220,224(sthCir.),cert. Dickersonv. denied,108 S.Ct.352 This entails submitting the factual and legal basis of any claim to the highest available state court f o r review. Carter v. Estelle,677 F.2d427,443(5thCir. 1982),cert. denied,l03 S.Ct.1508(1983). I n Texas,a pretrial detainee must presenthis claims to the TexasCourt of Criminal Appealsbefore s e e k i n grelief in federalcourt. SeeHamilton v. Dretke,No. 3-04-CY-2465-L,2005 WL 38977at *I WL 256472(N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2005);Davis v. CN.D.Tex. Jan.6,2005), rec. adopted,2005

A n d e r s o n ,No. 4-03-CV-0522-Y,2003WL 22389281at *l-2 (N.D, Tex. Sept. 10,2003), rec. appealdism'd, No. 03-l 1046(5thCir. Feb. 30,2003), a d o p t e d , 2 0 0 3 22387579(N.D. Tex. Sept. WL of 6 , 2 0 0 4 ) . Exceptionsexist only where there is an absence availablestatecorrectiveprocessor ineffectiveto protectthe rights of " e x c e p t i o n a lcircumstances peculiarurgency"rendersuchprocess HAnthonyv.Texas,No. o f the applicant.SeeDetersv.Collins,985F.2d 789,795(5th Cir. 1993); V/L 938582at *1 (S.D.Tex. Apr.4,2008),citing28 U.S.C.$ 2254(bX1). 08-904,2008 corpusin the court that he filed a writ of habeas In his interrogatory answers,petitioner states (SeeMag. J. Interrog.#2). However,no w h e r ehis caseis pending,but hasnot receiveda response. s u c h filing is reflected on the official websitesof Dallas County, Texas or the Texas Court of

' While section2241 doesnot expresslycontainan exhaustion must exhaust requirement, pretrial detainee a stateremediesunder the theory that federal courts should abstainfrom interfering with a pending statecourt proceeding. A s the Fifth Circuit explained: holdingthat althoughsection224 1 establishes [ A ] body of caselaw hasdeveloped j u r i s d i c t i o n in the federal courts to consider pre-trial habeascorpus petitions, f e d e r a l courts should abstainfrom the exerciseof that jurisdiction if the issues r a i s e din the petition may be resolvedeitherby trial on the merits in the statecourt availableto the petitioner. o r by other stateprocedures D i c k e r s o n , Sl6 F.2d a|225, citing Bradenv. 30thJudicial Circuit Court of Kentuclry,4l0 U.S.484, 489-92,93 S.Ct. 1t23, tt26-28,35 L.Ed.2d 43(1973). 4

Criminal Appeals. Moreover, the proper method for challenging the denial of a speedytrial is by f i l i n g a motion to set aside the indictment under Article 27.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal P r o c e d u r e . SeeSmith v. Gohmert,962 S.W.2d 590, 592-93(Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If the trial c o u r t deniesthe motion, the defendant may appealthat ruling post-conviction,Id. at 592. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals hasrecognizedthat speedytrial violations are appropriatefor review on post-conviction appeal,but not in a pretrial application for writ of habeascorpus. Ex parte Weise, 5 5 S.W.3d 617,620 (Tex. Crim.App.2001); seealsoAnthony,2008WL 938582at *2 (citing evenif petitionerfiled a statewrit of habeas corpus, hasnot exhausted state he c a s e s ) .Therefore, his r e m e d i e sin a procedurallycorrectmanner.' RECOMMENDATION without prejudicefor Petitioner's applicationfor writ of habeas corpusshouldbe dismissed failure to exhaust stateremedies. A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner within l0 daysafter p r o v i d e dby law. Any party may file written objectionsto the recommendation b e i n g servedwith a copy. See28 U.S.C. $ 636(bxl); Fno. R. Ctv. P.72(b). The failure to file written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal judge that are accepted adoptedby the district court, exceptupon or c o n c l u s i o n sof the magistrate g r o u n d sof plain error. ,See AutomobileAss'n,79 F.3d 1415,1417(5th Douglassv. UnitedServices C i r . 1996).

2 The court notesthat pretrial mandamusrelief may be available from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to e n f o r c ethe right to a speedytrial. SeeAnthony,2008 WL 938582 at *2 (citing cases). However, petitionerdoesnot allege that he filed a writ of mandamus.

DATED: December 2008. 19.

JUDGE STATES N,lAGISTRATE