Wight v. State of Texas

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
STEVEN CRAIG WIGHT,
TDCJ #1621335,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-02639

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The pleading in this action was filed as a civil rights complaint; however, it is
apparent that it has been submitted to the wrong court and has been incorrectly filed.
After reviewing all of the pleadings as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court
concludes that this case must be dismissed for reasons that follow.
I.

BACKGROUND
The plaintiff, Steven Craig Wight, is incarcerated in the Bradshaw State Jail of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) located in Rusk County, Texas.
Wight is serving a two year sentence pursuant to a theft conviction out of Smith
County, Texas. State v. Wight, No. 114-0458-13 (114th Dist. Ct., Smith County, Tex,
Jun. 26, 2013). Wight filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s decision.
After reviewing the trial record and transcript, Wight’s appellate counsel filed an

Anders1 brief and withdrew from the case. Wight then filed a pro se brief. After
reviewing the briefs, the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District of Texas affirmed
the trial court’s judgment and sentence. Wight v. State, No. 12-13-00227-CR (Tex.
App. Tyler, Aug. 29, 2013).
Wight drafted and mailed a Petition for Discretionary Review (“PDR”)
apparently intending to seek review in the Court of Criminal Appeals [Doc. # 1, p. 1].
Unfortunately for Wight, he put the PDR in an envelope addressed to the “Fifth
Circuit (Crt. of App.)” using the street address for the Houston federal courts.
II.

DISCUSSION
To the extent that Wight seeks to challenge his conviction in this Court, his

Ҥ 1983 action must be dismissed because his claim would be cognizable only in
habeas corpus.” Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 283 n.4. (5th Cir. 1994). Wight can
only file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court if he has exhausted all
available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384,
387 (5th Cir. 1998). Exhaustion requires that the federal claims have been fairly
presented to the highest court of the state either in a petition for discretionary review
or an application for writ of habeas corpus. Myers v. Collins, 919 F.2d 1074, 1076
(5th Cir. 1990). In Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the court of final

1

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2

review regarding criminal matters. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN., art. 4.04 § 2
(Vernon 2005). Wight has not alleged or shown that he has properly brought the
matter before the Court of Criminal Appeals. Therefore, it cannot be considered in
federal court at this time.
In addition, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this action which challenges a
court conviction in Smith County, Texas, and which was filed by a prisoner
incarcerated in Rusk County, Texas. See Wadsworth v. Johnson, 235 F.3d 959, 961
(5th Cir. 2000). A state prisoner may seek federal habeas relief “either in the district
where he is confined or the district where the sentencing court is located.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(d); Mayfield v. Klevenhagen, 941 F.2d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Braden
v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973)). Both Rusk
County and Smith County are in the Eastern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(1).
Consequently, the petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Wadsworth, 235
F.3d at 961.
This prisoner action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and because it lacks
an arguable basis in law. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213
(5th Cir. 1998).
It is, therefore, ORDERED as follows:
1.

This civil rights action, filed by Inmate Steven Craig Wight, TDCJ No.
1863759, is DISMISSED because it has no arguable basis in law. 28
3

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
2.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum and Order
to the parties; the TDCJ - Office of the General Counsel, P.O. Box
13084, Austin, Texas, 78711, Fax Number [phone]; and the Pro
Se Clerk for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, 2ll West
Ferguson, Tyler, Texas 75702.

3.

The Clerk is also directed to provide a copy of this Memorandum and
Order, along with a copy of the PDR [Doc. # 1], to the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, 201 West 14th Street, Room 106, Austin, Texas
78701.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on September 30 , 2014.

Nancy F. Atlas
United States District Judge

4