Williams v. Thaler
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 2 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. This Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Docket Entry No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.(Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(chorace)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EUGENE WILLIAMS,
SPN #02090009,
Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF ADRIAN GARCIA,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-3434
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Eugene Williams, a Harris County Jail inmate, challenges a
state court conviction for felony theft under $1500 made pursuant
to a guilty plea.
State v. Williams, No. 13049001010 (184th Dist.
Ct., Harris County, Texas, May 6, 2011).
In support of his
challenge, Robinson alleges that he was unaware of the consequences
of his plea, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel,
that he was denied the right to appeal, and that the terms of the
plea were not followed. This petition will be dismissed because of
the petitioner’s failure to exhaust state remedies.
The pending federal habeas petition reflects that Williams did
not file an appeal (Docket Entry No. 1 at 2).
He alleges that he
filed a post-conviction state application for a writ of habeas
corpus in July of 2011; however, Williams has not received any
response
to
application.
his
request
Id. at 3.
concerning
the
disposition
of
the
A federal habeas petitioner challenging the validity of his
incarceration pursuant to a state-court conviction must exhaust
available state remedies before seeking relief in the federal
courts.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Nobles v. Johnson, 127 F.3d 409,
419-420 (5th Cir. 1997).
The substance of the claims must have
been presented to the state’s highest court, the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals in this case.
See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d
384, 387 (5th Cir. 1998). In doing so, the petitioner must present
all legal theories and factual allegations that support his claims
for relief. Wilder v. Cockrell, 274 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2001).
To satisfy this requirement, the federal claims must have been
fairly presented to the Court of Criminal Appeals either in a
petition for discretionary review or in an application for a writ
of habeas corpus.
Cir. 1990).
See Myers v. Collins, 919 F.2d 1074, 1076 (5th
The exhaustion requirement is based in part on the
principle of comity in which the states have the first opportunity
to address and correct alleged violations of a state prisoner's
federal
rights
before
consideration
by
the
federal
courts.
Mercadel v. Cain, 179 F.3d 271, 277 (5th Cir. 1999), citing Coleman
v. Thompson, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2555 (1991).
Williams has admitted that he did not file a direct appeal.
The court has examined the records of the Court of Criminal Appeals
and has found no entry indicating that an application for a writ of
habeas corpus has been filed challenging the 2011 state court
-2-
judgment.
See Court of Criminal Appeals Website, http://www.cca.
courts.state.tx.us.
The court has also examined the Harris County
District Clerk’s records, which do not reflect that any postconviction writ application has been filed challenging Williams’
2011 felony theft conviction.
See Harris County District Clerk’s
Website, http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com.
Williams states that he has only recently filed his state
habeas application.
State courts must be given an opportunity to
address the issues before Williams can seek relief in the federal
courts.
Picard v. Connor, 92 S. Ct. 509 (1971).
The exhaustion
doctrine will not be applied when the state system inordinately and
unjustifiably delays review of a petitioner’s claims so as to
impinge upon his due process rights and where the delay is wholly
and completely the fault of the state. Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d
789, 795-96 (5th Cir. 1993).
However, the time periods justifying
an exception to the exhaustion requirement have exceeded a year.
See, e.g., Breazeale v. Bradley, 582 F.2d 5 (5th Cir. 1978).
Williams’
petition
indicates
that
he
application less than three months ago.
filed
his
state
habeas
Accordingly, this action
will be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the petitioner
to present his claims to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Should Williams file a notice of appeal, this court will deny
the issuance of a certificate of appealability for the reasons
-3-
stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 28 U.S.C. § 2253;
Murphy v. Johnson, 110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
The court ORDERS the following:
1.
The petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) is GRANTED.
2.
This Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in State Custody (Docket Entry No. 1) is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
3.
A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 26th day of September, 2011.
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-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?