West v. Creuzot et al

Filing 9

ORDER ACCEPTING 5 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 3/11/2025) (kcr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

DONALD RAY WEST,
#24021697,
Petitioner,
VS.
JOHN CREUZOT, ET AL.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:24-CV-3165-G-BT

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the
undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions
of the court. By separate judgment, the petitioner’s federal habeas petition will be
DISMISSED because Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) precludes federal
jurisdiction over the petitioner’s challenges to his ongoing state criminal proceedings,
and because the petitioner did not exhaust available state court remedies before filing
his application for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The court notes that, after the United States Magistrate Judge issued her
recommendation, the petitioner did not file objections but instead filed a document
in which he claims that he is currently exhausting his state remedies. See docket
entry 8. To the extent that this document could be liberally construed as a motion to
stay this action pending the petitioner’s exhaustion of state remedies, the motion is
denied.
First, regardless of whether the petitioner exhausts his claims, for the reasons
explained in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation – which the petitioner does not
challenge – Younger v. Harris requires the court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction
over this action. See, e.g., Kolski v. Watkins, 544 F.2d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 1977)
(applying the Younger abstention doctrine to pretrial habeas petition and noting
“[t]here is no practical difference between granting federal habeas relief from a
pending state criminal trial and enjoining the same trial”); Prather v. Gonzalez, 2024
WL 5159728, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2024) (“While Prather’s failure to exhaust
his state-court remedies requires dismissal of his [§ 2241] petition, the Court also
notes that even if Prather could show that he had satisfied the exhaustion
requirement, it would decline to exercise jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 54 (1971).”).
Second, even putting Younger abstention aside, stays are only available in
limited circumstances. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). “Because

-2-

granting a stay effectively excuses a petitioner’s failure to present his claims first to
state courts, stay and abeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines
that there [is] good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims [first in
state court].” Id. at 277.
Here, the petitioner does not attempt to establish good cause for a stay, so he
is not entitled to one.
In sum, the court accepts the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of
the United States Magistrate Judge. By separate judgment, the petitioner’s federal
habeas petition will be DISMISSED. The petitioner’s construed motion for a stay in
these proceedings so that he can exhaust his state court remedies (docket entry 8) is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
March 11, 2025.
___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge

-3-