Steels v. Stephens
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM ON DISMISSAL. Order granting 2 Petitioner's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All pending motions are DENIED. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
PRINCELLA VALENTINE STEELS,
TDCJ-CID NO. 1926484,
Petitioner,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS,
Respondent.
CIVIL ACTION H-15-0679
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL
Petitioner
Princella
Valentine
Steels,
a
state
inmate
proceeding pro se, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
2254
from a
state court
felony conviction.
(Docket No.1.)
Because Petitioner has not exhausted her state court remedies, the
Court will dismiss this action.
BACKGROUND
On April
28,
2014,
Petitioner was
convicted in the
263rd
Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas, for fraudulent use
or possession of identifying information (Cause No. 1416047).
Offender Search website.
confinement
in
the
1
TDCJ
Petitioner was sentenced to twelve years
Texas
Department
of
Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID).
Criminal
Justice-
Petitioner states
that she filed a direct appeal from her conviction to the First
Court of Appeals of Texas, but she indicates that the appeal is
lhttp://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?s
id=02684185 (viewed April 7, 2015).
still pending and she has not
court.
(Docket No.1 at 3.)
received any response
from that
Petitioner also states that she filed
a state habeas petition in the Texas First Court of Appeals on
February 11,
00120-CV).
case
as
2015,
which also remains pending
(Id. at 4.)
pending,
it
(Cause No.
01-15-
Although public court records do show that
is
identified
as
an
appeal
from
conviction in the 152nd District Court of Harris County,
Texas Courts website. 2
a
2012
Texas.
A search of state court records did not
reveal any appeals or petitions filed in regard to the conviction
challenged in the instant petition.
ANALYSIS
Under
28
U. S. C.
§
2254,
a
petitioner
"must
exhaust
all
available state remedies before he may obtain federal habeas corpus
relief."
Sones v. Hargett, 61 F.3d 410, 414 (5th Cir. 1995).
doctrine
of
2254 (b) (1)
exhaustion,
and
(c),
codified
as
amended
at
28
U.S.C.
The
§
reflects a policy of federal! state comity.
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991).
Those statutes provide
in pertinent part as follows:
(b) (1)
(A)
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court shall not be granted
unless it appears that
the applicant has exhausted the remedies
available in the courts of the State; or
2 http :((www.search.txcourts.gov(Case.aspx?cn=01-15-00120-CV&coa=coa01
(viewed April 7, 2015.)
2
(i)
there is an absence of available
State corrective process; or
(ii)
(B)
circumstances exist that render such
process ineffective to protect the
rights of the applicant.
* * * *
An applicant shall not be deemed to have
exhausted the remedies available in the courts
of the State, within the meaning of this
section, if he has the right under the law of
the
State
to
raise,
by
any
available
procedure, the question presented.
(c)
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) - (c).
Under this framework, exhaustion means
that a petitioner must have presented all of her habeas corpus
claims fairly to the state's highest court before she may bring
them to federal court.
Fisher v.
Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346 (1989);
State, 169 F.3d 295,
302
(5th Cir. 1999).
exhaustion in Texas may take one of two paths:
Generally,
(1) the petitioner
may file a direct appeal followed, if necessary, by a Petition for
Discretionary Review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, or (2)
she may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under Article
11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in the convicting
court which, if denied, is automatically transmitted to the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals.
Myers v. Collins,
919 F.2d 1074
(5th
Cir.1990).
"The exhaustion requirement is satisfied when the substance of
the federal habeas claim has been fairly presented to the highest
state court."
Mercadel v. Cain, 179 F.3d 271, 275 (5th Cir. 1999);
3
Fisher,
169 F. 3d at
petitioner
provides
302.
the
A claim is exhausted when a
highest
state
court
with
habeas
a
"'fair
opportunity to pass upon the claim,' which in turn requires that
the applicant
'present his claims before the state courts in a
procedurally proper manner according to the rules of the state
courts.'"
Mercadel, 179 F.3d at 275 (quoting Dupuy v. Butler, 837
F.2d 699, 702 (5th Cir. 1988)).
In this case,
Petitioner admits that she has not exhausted
~
state habeas remedies on her present claims
(Docket No. 1
and public records also confirm this fact.
Because Petitioner's
claims are unexhausted,
24),
her petition must be dismissed under 28
U.S.C. § 2254.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A Certificate of Appealability from a habeas corpus proceeding
will not issue unless the petitioner makes "a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right."
This
standard
debate whether
"includes
(or,
for
showing
that
that matter,
28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2).
reasonable
agree
jurists
that)
could
the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
presented
were
further."
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
quotations
and
adequate
citations
to
deserve
omitted).
encouragement
473,
484
Stated
to
(2000)
proceed
(internal
differently,
the
petitioner "must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the
4
district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable
or wrong."
2001).
Id.;
Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 263
(5th Cir.
When denial of relief is based on procedural grounds, the
petitioner must not only show that "jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a
constitutional right," but also that they "would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling. "
Beazley,
242 F. 3d at 263
(quoting Slack,
529
484); see also Hernandez v. Johnson, 213 F.3d 243, 248
2000).
sua
u. S.
at
(5th Cir.
A district court may deny a certificate of appealability,
sponte,
without
requiring
further
briefing
or
argument.
Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000).
Because
Petitioner cannot make a
substantial
showing that
reasonable jurists would find the Court's procedural ruling here
debatable
or
wrong,
a
Certificate
decision will be denied.
5
of
Appealability
from
this
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.
Petitioner's Motion to Proceed In Forma
(Docket No.2) is GRANTED.
Pauperis
2.
The petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for
failure to exhaust all available state remedies as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
3.
A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
4.
All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED.
of this Order to Petitioner.
The Clerk will provide
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on
~~~~--~----~~~-------
, 2015.
~~~-V./'/'/L/j7
UNITED ST
6
JUDGE
~
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?