Williams v. Stephens
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, denying 2 Motion to Waive Exhaustion Requirements. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MARLON DANTRUCE WILLIAMS,
TDCJ NO. 935987,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-2098
WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texa§
Department of Criminal Justice, §
Correctional Institutions
§
Division,
§
§
Respondent.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Marlon Dantruce Williams (TDCJ No. 935987)
is a state inmate
incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice pursuant
to a state court judgment.
Williams has filed a federal petition
for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§
2254 challenging a
state court conviction while a state post-conviction application
for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the same conviction,
currently pending.
is
For reasons explained below, this action will
be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Williams is serving a life prison sentence pursuant to a state
court
conviction for murder.
State v.
Williams,
No.
(178th Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex. Jul. 13, 2000).
820802-A
He states
that his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the
Fourth District of Texas.
(Petition, Docket Entry No. I, p. 3).
He does not
(PDR) was
indicate that
a
petition for discretionary review
Williams
filed.
states
that
he
filed
a
state
application for a writ of habeas corpus r pursuant to Article 11.07
of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure r on March 13 r
states that the application is still pending.
2012.
rd.
rd. at 4.
He
Williams
also asserts that he has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of
mandamus
that
was
denied
by
the
Court
of
Criminal
Appeals.
(Petitioner r s Motion to Waive Exhaustion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
2254 (B) (ii) Docket Entry No. 2r pp. 7-8)
II. Analysis
This court verified that Williams r s conviction was affirmed by
the
San Antonio
Court
of
Appeals
and
that
no
PDR was
filed.
Williams v. Stater 62 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App. - San Antonio r 2001).
This court has also verified that a state habeas application is
currently being processed by the Harris County District Clerkrs
Office where it was filed on March 13 r 2012. See Website for Harris
County Clerkrs Office:
Under 28 U.S.C.
available
courts.
1997).
2009)
state
§
http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com.
2254(b)
remedies
a habeas petitioner must exhaust
r
before
seeking
relief
See Nobles v. Johnson r 127 F.3d 409 r
in the
419-420
See also Wion v. Quarterman r 567 F.3d 146 r
("Before pursuing federal
148
federal
(5th Cir.
(5th Cir.
habeas relief r a petitioner is
required to exhaust all state procedures for relief.) citing Orman
v.
Cain,. 228 F.3d 616 r
619-20
(5th Cir.2000).
-2 -
To exhaust his
state remedies, the petitioner must present the substance of his
claims to the state courts, and the claims must have been fairly
presented to the highest court of the state.
Nobles,
citing Picard v.
(1971)
Collins,
Connor,
919 F.2d 1074,
requirement
Thompson,
is
92 S.Ct.
1076
based on
the
509,
512-13
(5th Cir.
1990).
principle
111 S. Ct. 2546,2555
of
i
at 420,
Myers v.
The exhaustion
comity.
Coleman v.
Federal courts follow
(1991).
this principle to afford the state courts the first opportunity "to
address and correct alleged violations of state prisoner's federal
rights.
Therefore,
II
a habeas petitioner must exhaust his
state court remedies before presenting his constitutional claims in
a federal petition.
See Rhines v. Weber,
128 S. Ct.
1528,
1533
(2005) .
Regardless of whether the claims in this action are identical
to those presented in the current state application,
this court
will not adjudicate an application while habeas claims are under
review by the state courts.
797
(5th
pending,
comity
Cir.
1993)
See Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789,
("Because
Deters'
state
appeal
is
still
we would have to ignore the doctrine of federal-state
by
disrupting
Williams v. Bailey,
that
ongoing
463 F. 2d 247,
state
248
process. ")
(5th Cir.
i
1972)
see
also
("federal
disruption of the state judicial appellate process would be an
unseemly and uncalled for interference that comity between our dual
system forbids").
Williams must wait until the state courts issue
-3-
a decision.
He cannot circumvent the state system and seek relief
See Graham v. Collins,
in federal court.
Cir.
1996)
Bailey,
i
Deters,
464 F.2d 560,
985
969
(5th
792-794.
See also Bryant v.
(5th Cir. 1972).
If a federal habeas
F.2d at
561
94 F.3d 958,
petition is filed while state remedies are still being pursued, a
federal court has the authority to dismiss the federal petition.
Brewer v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 491, 493 (5th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice
for failure of the petitioner to exhaust all available remedies on
all
his
claims
to
the
state's
highest
court
of
jurisdiction as required by the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
criminal
§
2254.
Should Williams file a notice of appeal, the court denies the
issuance of a Certificate of Appealability for the reasons stated
in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.
28 U.S.C. § 2253; Whitehead
v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1998)
i
Murphy v. Johnson,
110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997).
III. Conclusion
1.
This Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by a
person in state custody (Docket Entry No.1), is
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state
court remedies.
2.
A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
3.
The Motion to Waive Exhaustion Requirements (Docket Entry
No.2)
is DENIED for the reasons stated in this
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
3.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion
and Order to the petitioner and to the respondent by
-4-
providing one copy to the Attorney General of the State
of Texas.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 25th day of July, 2014.
/
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
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?