Hallman v. Tarrant County Sheriff
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. All pending motions not previously ruled upon are DENIED. Petitioner has not made a showing that reasonable jurists would question this Court's procedural ruling. Therefore, a certificate of appealability should not issue. (Ordered by Senior Judge Terry R Means on 6/7/2018) (bdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
ROBERT F. HALLMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
BILL WAYBOURN, Sheriff,
Tarrant County, Texas,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-907-Y
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, Robert F.
Hallman, a pretrial detainee confined in the Tarrant County jail,
against
Bill
Waybourn,
sheriff
of
Tarrant
County,
Texas,
Respondent. After having considered the pleadings and relief sought
by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be
dismissed on exhaustion grounds.
I.
Factual and Procedural History
Petitioner has been indicted in Tarrant County, Texas, Case
Nos. 1451589D and 1489585D, for sexual assault of a child and
continuous sexual abuse of a child and is awaiting trial. (Resp’t’s
Reply 11 & 15, doc. 7.1) In this federal petition, Petitioner
raises the following grounds for habeas relief:
(1)
1
He has been deprived of his right to release under
article 17.151 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure;
Respondent’s reply has attachments thereto, therefore the pagination in
the ECF header is used.
(2)
He has been deprived of his Sixth Amendment right
to effective assistance of trial counsel;
(3)
His Eighth Amendment right has been violated due to
excessive bond;
(4)
He has been deprived of his Fourteenth Amendment
right to due process of law and equal protection of
the laws; and
(5)
His trial counsel has neglected his or her duty “to
conduct themselves as to insure a fair trial . . .,
not impair the presumption of innocence, and at the
same time afford the public the benefits of a free
press,” in violation of article 2.03 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Pet. 2-4, doc. 1.2)
II.
Discussion
A state pretrial detainee is entitled to raise constitutional
claims
in
a
federal
habeas
proceeding
under
§
2241
if
two
requirements are satisfied. First, the petitioner must be in
custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d
220, 224 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 956 (1987). Clearly,
Petitioner, who remains incarcerated in the Tarrant County jail on
the pending criminal charges, is “in custody” for purposes of §
2241.
Second, the petitioner must have exhausted his available state
remedies. See Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 224. State remedies are
ordinarily not considered exhausted so long as the petitioner may
2
The petition is not paginated, therefore the pagination in the ECF header
is used.
2
effectively present his claims to the state courts by any currently
available and adequate procedure. Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of
Ky.,
410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973). Typically, in order to exhaust, a
petitioner must fairly apprise the highest state court of the
federal rights that were allegedly violated. See Deters v. Collins,
985 F.2d 789, 795 (5th Cir. 1993); Richardson v. Procunier, 762
F.2d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 1985). In Texas, this requires that the
claims be presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals by way
of either a petition for discretionary review3 or postconviction
writ of habeas corpus before a pretrial detainee may seek federal
habeas-corpus relief.
See Deters, 985 F.2d at 795; Procunier, 762
F.2d at 432. See also Sones v. Hargett, 61 F.3d 410, 415 (5th Cir.
1995) (exhaustion of state remedies may be accomplished either
directly or collaterally). A petitioner may be excused from the
exhaustion
requirement
only
if
he
can
show
“exceptional
circumstances of peculiar urgency.” Deters, 985 F.2d at 795. Absent
such circumstances, a pretrial detainee may not adjudicate the
merits of his constitutional claims before a judgment of conviction
has been entered by a state court. Braden,
410 U.S. at 489.
“Derailing of a pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate
constitutional
defenses
prematurely
in
federal
court”
is
not
allowed. Id. at 493.
3
Either from conviction itself or from the disposition of a preconviction
application for writ of habeas corpus. See generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
arts. 11.07-11.09 (West 2005 & Supp. 2013).
3
Petitioner presents no evidence that he has exhausted his
state-court
remedies
circumstances.
Thus,
and
makes
no
federal-court
showing
of
interference
exceptional
in
the
normal
functioning of the state’s criminal processes is not warranted. See
Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir. 1980). Texas has
adequate and effective state procedures for review of Petitioner’s
constitutional claims in the event he is convicted of the present
charges. Federal habeas relief should not be used as a “pretrial
motion forum for state prisoners.” Braden, 410 U.S. at 493.
In
summary,
Petitioner
has
not
satisfied
the
exhaustion
requirement as to the claims presented or shown that he should be
excused
from
the
exhaustion
requirement
by
demonstrating
exceptional circumstances warranting federal intrusion at this
juncture.
Accordingly, pretrial habeas interference by this Court
is not authorized. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 493. After the state
proceedings
are
concluded,
federal
habeas
proceedings
can
be
instituted by Petitioner after he has exhausted his state remedies.
This petition will be dismissed without prejudice to his right to
seek federal habeas corpus relief after the state proceedings are
concluded. Under the circumstances, dismissal is appropriate. See
Deters, 985 F.2d at 797.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
4
without prejudice for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. All
pending motions not previously ruled upon are DENIED.
Further, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22 provides that
an appeal may not proceed unless a certificate of appealability is
issued under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The certificate of appealability may
issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336 (2003). “Under this standard, when a district court denies
habeas relief by rejecting constitutional claims on their merits,
‘the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find
the
district
court’s
assessment
of
the
constitutional
claims
debatable or wrong.’” McGowen v. Thaler, 675 F.3d 482, 498 (5th
Cir. 2012) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
When the district court denies the petition on procedural grounds
without reaching the merits, the petitioner must show “that jurists
of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. (quoting Slack,
529 U.S. at 484). This inquiry involves two components, but a court
may deny a certificate of appealability by resolving the procedural
question only. Petitioner has not made a showing that reasonable
jurists would question this Court’s procedural ruling. Therefore,
5
a certificate of appealability should not issue.
SIGNED June 7, 2018.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?