Jenkins v. Thaler

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a cognizable federal habeas claim. Any and all pending motions DENIED AS MOOT. Certificate of appealability DENIED. Case terminated on 6/14/2010.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(gseidl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS H O U S T O N DIVISION A LBERT JENKINS,1 P e titio n e r , v. R ICK THALER, R e s p o n d e n t. § § § § § § § § §

C IVIL ACTION NO. H-10-1423

O RDER OF DISMISSAL P e titio n e r , a state inmate in custody of the Harris County Jail, filed this pro se habeas p e titio n challenging his continued custody pursuant to a "blue warrant" for parole revocation p ro c e e d in g s. 2 He asserts that, because his blue warrant charges him with a "technical" parole v io la tio n , he can be held in county jail only for a maximum of 180 days under state law. He c o m p la in s that he has been in county jail for over 200 days, in violation of state law. Petitioner must exhaust his habeas claim through the state courts prior to seeking f e d era l habeas relief. See Nobles v. Johnson, 127 F.3d 409, 420 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that t o have exhausted his state remedies, a habeas petitioner must have fairly presented the su b sta n c e of his federal constitutional claims to the state courts); see also Deters v. Collins, 9 8 5 F.2d 789, 795 (5th Cir. 1993). Because petitioner did not allege in his petition that he
1

Petitioner is also known as A B Jenkins, III, Albert Jenkins, III, Albert B Jenkins, III, and Abdul Hakim Ahmad. A "blue warrant" is an arrest warrant issued when a parolee is suspected of violating the conditions of his parole. TEX. GOV'T CODE § 508.252.
2

e x h a u ste d his state court remedies, the Court ordered petitioner to show cause, by June 1, 2 0 1 0 , why the petition should not be dismissed for his failure to exhaust his habeas claims th ro u g h the state courts prior to filing this federal lawsuit. To-date, petitioner has failed to co m p ly with the Court's order. R e g a rd le ss , by raising only a claim for violation of state law, petitioner fails to present a cognizable ground for federal habeas relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1 9 9 1 ) (holding that federal habeas corpus relief will not issue to correct errors of state co n stitutio n al, statutory, or procedural law, unless a federal issue is also presented). A c c o rd in g ly, no viable grounds for federal habeas relief are raised in the instant petition. The petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a cognizable f e d e ra l habeas claim. Any and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. A certificate f o r appealability is DENIED. T h e Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties. S ig n e d at Houston, Texas, on June 14, 2010.

Gray H. Miller U n ite d States District Judge

2