McWilliams v. Johnson et al
Filing
23
Opinion and Order granting 17 Motion to Dismiss, filed by William Stephens. For the reasons discussed herein, Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2254 is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state remedies. Also, for the reasons discussed herein, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Reed C O'Connor on 2/18/2016) (trt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
LETICIA MCWILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-641-O
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed
by Petitioner, Leticia McWilliams, a state prisoner who was confined in the Correctional Institutions
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) at the time this petition was filed,
against Williams Stephens, Director of TDCJ, Respondent. After considering the pleadings and
relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that Respondent’s motion to dismiss should be
granted and the petition dismissed on exhaustion grounds.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2010, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty in
Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 1174887D, to intoxication assault and received a probated ten-year
sentence. Resp’t Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A 2-4, ECF No. 17-2.1 The conditions of Petitioner’s
community supervision were extensive. On April 4, 2014, following a hearing, the trial court
revoked her community supervision on the state’s motion and sentenced her to four years’
confinement. Id. at 5-7. Petitioner is no longer confined in TDCJ and is currently residing at the Fort
Worth Transitional Center.
1
The pagination in the ECF header is used.
II. ISSUES
In this habeas petition, Petitioner raises four grounds for relief:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
court documents contain false information;
court documents contain signatures that do not belong to Judge Robb
Catalano or herself;
court documents have been legally altered; and
fraudulent court documents resulted in her “illegal incarcerations.”
Pet. 6-7, ECF No. 7.
Petitioner seeks immediate release, immediate legal assistance, legal help and legal
protection, removal from community supervision and the Texas legal system, and assistance with
housing, medical and dental care, and other expenses. Id. at 7.
III. RULE 5 STATEMENT
Respondent does not assert the petition is barred by limitations or subject to the successivepetition bar. Resp’t’s Mot. to Dismiss 5-6, ECF No. 17. He does, however, assert Petitioner’s claims
are unexhausted for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
IV. EXHAUSTION
Applicants seeking habeas corpus relief under § 2254 are required to exhaust all claims in
the state courts before requesting federal collateral relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), (c)2; Fisher v.
2
The terms of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c) provide in pertinent part as follows:
(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person
in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it
appears that —
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies
available in the courts of the State; or
(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective
process; or
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process
ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.
...
2
Texas, 169 F.3d 295, 302 (5th Cir. 1999). A state petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement
by presenting both the factual and legal substance of his or her claims to the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals in either a petition for discretionary review or a state habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to
article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07
(West 2015); Alexander v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 906, 908-09 (5th Cir. 1998); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles
v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
Petitioner did not properly raise the instant claims on direct appeal of the judgment revoking
her community supervision nor has she demonstrated that she has raised the claims in a state habeas
corpus application.3, 4 In fact, she answered question 24 in the form petition in the negative when
asked if she has any petition or appeal now pending in any court, either state or federal, for the
judgment you are challenging, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s website does not show
that a state habeas application was received in that court after direct appeal was concluded. Pet. 8,
ECF No. 7. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims are not exhausted as required by § 2254(b)(1)(A).
Therefore, to the extent Petitioner’s claims are not rendered moot by her release, she must
first pursue her state habeas corpus remedies, in addition to any applicable administrative remedies,
before seeking relief under § 2254. Absent a showing that state remedies are inadequate, such
(c) An applicant 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.
3
Petitioner was represented by counsel on direct appeal, including the petition for discretionary review. To
the extent Petitioner filed pro se documents in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals raising one or more of her claims
during direct appeal, the claims were not properly before the state court, and the state court made no rulings on the
documents. See Ex parte Bohannan, 350 S.W.3d 116, 116-17 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
4
Although it appears Petitioner filed a motion for leave to file an application for writ of habeas corpus in the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals while her direct appeal was pending, leave was denied without written order on
October 15, 2014. Adm. R., ECF No. 20-24.
3
showing not having been demonstrated, she cannot now proceed in federal court in habeas corpus.
Dismissal of this federal habeas corpus proceeding for lack of exhaustion is warranted so that
Petitioner can fully exhaust her state remedies and then return to this court, if she so desires, after
exhaustion has been properly and fully accomplished.5, 6
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2254 is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state
remedies. Also, for the reasons discussed herein, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 18th day of February, 2016.
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions in federal
court, subject to any applicable tolling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)-(2).
6
To the extent Petitioner raises challenges to the conditions, rules or procedures of the transition center, the
claims will not lie in habeas corpus and were are not properly raised in this habeas action.
4
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?