Hendrix v. Morehart et al
Filing
4
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING Hendrix's 3 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. It is RECOMMENDED that the court DISMISS without PREJUDICE Hendrix's Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (klw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JASON HENDRIX
§
§
V.
§
§
DON MOREHART, SHERIFF OF
§
WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS,
§
DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOHN
§
BRADLEY, DISTRICT CLERK LISA
§
DAVID, THE HONORABLE BURT
§
CARNES AND THE TEXAS ATTORNEY §
GENERAL GREG ABBOTT
§
A-12-CA-1153- LY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:
THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are: Petitioner Jason Hendrix’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Clerk’s Doc. No. 3) and his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Clerk’s Doc. No. 1). Because Petitioner is indigent, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Petitioner’s
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Clerk’s Doc. No. 3). However, for the reasons set forth
below, the undersigned finds that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be
dismissed without prejudice.
The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the United States District
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of
Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND
At the time of filing, Petitioner was a pre-trial detainee confined at Williamson County Jail
awaiting trial on the state charges of Evading Arrest in a Motor Vehicle (a 3rd Degree Felony) and
the Misdemeanor offense of Driving While Intoxicated (2nd Offense).1 In this case, Petitioner alleges
that the criminal charges against him violate his constitutional rights to due process and to be free
from double jeopardy. He further alleges that his counsel and the district court judge have denied
him the effective assistance of counsel. He also alleges that he has been denied access to an adequate
law library to prepare his defense. Petitioner seeks dismissal of his state criminal charges.
Notwithstanding these claims, on January 8, 2013, Petitioner voluntarily pled guilty to the above
state charges. See Plea Agreement filed on 1/8/2013, in No. 12-1344-K368.
II. ANALYSIS
A state pretrial detainee or prisoner is entitled to raise constitutional claims in a federal
habeas proceeding under § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220,
224 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 956 (1987). However, he must first exhaust available
state court remedies as to each and every ground upon which he claims entitlement to habeas relief,
whether he seeks relief pursuant to § 2241 or § 2254. Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 225; Rose v. Lundy, 455
U.S. 509 (1982). Generally, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied only when the grounds urged in
a federal petition were first fairly presented to the state’s highest court in a procedurally proper
manner. Dupuy v. Butler, 837 F.2d 699, 702 (5th Cir. 1988). A total exhaustion rule promotes
comity and such a rule does not unreasonably impair a prisoner's right to relief. Rose, 455 U.S. at
1
See State v. Hendrix, No. 12-1344-K368 (368th Dist. Ct., Williamson County, Tex.), and
State v. Hendrix, No. 12-07883-3 (Co. Ct. at Law No. 3, Williamson County, Tex.).
-2-
523. The state courts must be given a fair opportunity to hear and consider the claims raised by an
applicant before those claims are heard in federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275
(1971). A petitioner may be excused from the exhaustion requirement only if he can show
exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency. Deters, 985 F.2d at 795. A federal district court may
take notice sua sponte of the lack of exhaustion. Shute v. Texas, 117 F.3d 233, 237 (5th Cir. 1997).
Federal courts can dismiss without prejudice the entirety of a federal habeas petition that contains
any unexhausted grounds for relief. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510; Thomas v. Collins, 919 F.2d 333, 334
(5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1235 (1991).
Because Hendrix seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and since habeas corpus is the
appropriate remedy, he must comply with the statutory and jurisprudential requirements concerning
exhaustion of available state court remedies. His original pleading is silent regarding whether he
exhausted his state court remedies before filing his petition. A review of the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals’ docket reflects that Hendrix has not filed a petition for review or a writ of habeas
corpus with that Court. Thus, Petitioner has not satisfied the exhaustion requirement as to the claims
presented in the instant § 2241. In addition, he has not shown that he should otherwise be excused
from the exhaustion requirement due to exceptional circumstances warranting federal intrusion at
this juncture. Accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust all available state
court remedies.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the District
Court DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Jason Hendrix’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to § 2241 (Clerk’s Docket No. 1) for failure to exhaust all available state court remedies.
-3-
IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from a final order in a habeas corpus
proceeding “unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)
(1)(A). A certificate of appealability may issue only if a movant has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Supreme Court fully explained the
requirement associated with a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” in Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000). In cases where a District Court rejected
a movant’s constitutional claims on the merits, “the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable
jurists would find the District Court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”
Id. “When a District Court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the
petitioner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the petitioner shows, at least,
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the District Court
was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.
In this case, reasonable jurists could not debate the dismissal of Petitioner’s habeas petition
on procedural grounds, nor find that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003) (citing Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484). Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the Court shall not issue a certificate of
appealability.
V. OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days after receipt of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file
written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636
-4-
(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained
within this report within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by
the district court of the proposed findings and recommendations and from appellate review of factual
findings accepted or adopted by the district court except on grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-277
(5th Cir. 1988).
To the extent that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report and
Recommendation electronically, pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District, the Clerk is
ORDERED to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation by certified mail, return
receipt requested.
SIGNED this 15th day of January, 2013.
_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?