Ware v. El Paso Psychiatric Institute, et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order. Petitioner is DENIED a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge David C Guaderrama. (mc4)
L E E)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS2c
EL PASO DIVISION
2
3
P
17:
tL1OF
ALBERT WAYNE WARE,
L3
TEXAS
§
§
§
No. 1O3646
Petitioner,
v.
§
EP-17-CV-393-DCG
§
EL PASO FSYCHIATRIC
INSTITUTE,
Respondent.
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Albert Wayne Ware seeks relief from his mental health competency
commitment to the Respondent El Paso Psychiatric Institute through a pro se "Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No.
1).
More
specifically, Ware challenges the 120-day commitment ordered by the 243rd Judicial District
Court of El Paso County, Texas, in cause number 201 70D0 1638. Ware claims his arrest was
illegal because he did not receive Miranda or any other warnings, the trial court erred when it
denied his oral motions to dismiss, and he was wrongfully detained at the county jail for six
months before he was sent to the El Paso Psychiatric Institute for the mental health competency
evaluation. Pet'r's Pet. at 6-7, ECF No.
1.
For the reasons outlined below, the Court concludes it should dismiss Ware's petition.
The Court additionally concludes it should deny Ware a certificate of appealability.
APPLICABLE LAW
Federal habeas corpus is the appropriate means for seeking relief from a mental health
competency commitment. See Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (2001) (involving a habeas corpus
-1-
challenge under 28 U.S.C.
statute); Jackson
v.
§
2254 to a civil judgment of commitment under a state sex offender
Foti, 670 F.2d 516 (5th cir. Unit A 1980) (addressing a federal habeas corpus
challenge brought by an "insanity acquittee" seeking release from confinement in a state hospital).
As a prerequisite to obtaining § 2254 relief, however, a petitioner must exhaust all remedies
available in the state system. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(l), (c); Fisher
v.
Texas, 169 F.3d 295, 302 (5th
Cir. 1999). This exhaustion requirement reflects a policy of federal-state comity "designed to
give the State an initial 'opportunity to pass upon and correct' alleged violations of its prisoners'
federal rights." Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971) (quoting Wi/wording v. Swenson,
404 U.S. 249, 250 (1971)). It also prevents "unnecessary conflict between courts equally bound
to guard and protect rights secured by the Constitution." Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 251
(1886).
"The [Texas] legislature has set out a very specific process by which the competency of a
criminal defendant to stand trial is determined. That process hinges on a determination of
competency or incompetency made under [Texas Code of Criminal Procedure] article 46B.005,
and the legislature has explicitly barred any [interlocutory] appeal from such a determination."
Queen v. State, 212 S.W.3d 619, 622 (Tex. App. 2006); see also Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann.
§
46B.0 11 (West) ("Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to make an interlocutory appeal
relating to a determination or ruling under Article 46B.005."). Because "the legislature did not
intend to allow interlocutory appeals.
. .
there is no.
. .
adequate remedy at law" from orders of
temporary commitment made after a determinatiOn of incompetence. Id. at 623. Therefore, a
petitioner
ust bring claims arising from mental health competency commitment proceedings "by
way of a pe4ition for writ of habeas corpus." Id. (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.01
-2-
(West 2005)).
Thus, a petitioner challenging mental health competency commitment proceedings
satisfies the exhaustion requirement when he presents the substance of his habeas claims to the
state's highest criminal court in a procedurally proper manner before filing a petition in federal
court. Baldwin
v.
Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004); Morris
v.
Dretke, 379 F.3d 199, 204 (5th Cir.
2004). In Texas, the Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest court for criminal matters.
Richardson
v.
Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 431(5th Cir. 1985). A Texas prisoner may only satisfy
the exhaustion requirement by presenting both the factual and legal substance of his claims to the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a state habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure article 11.07. See Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 11.07; Queen, 212 S.W.3d
at 623; Tigner v. Cockrell, 264 F.3d 521, 526 (5th Cir. 2001); Alexander
v.
Johnson, 163 F.3d 906,
908-09 (5th Cir. 1998).
ANALYSIS
Ware does not allege in his petition, and the on-line records of the Court of Criminal
Appeals do not show,' that he presented his claims to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals prior to
seeking federal habeas corpus relief. Ware has also not shown in his petition that the Court
should excuse the exhaustion requirement because he cannot obtain redress in a state court or that
the corrective process is so clearly deficient as to render futile any effort by you to obtain relief
See Graham
1,
v.
Johnson, 94 F.3d 958, 969 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Duckworth
v.
Serrano, 454 U.S.
3(1981)).
"[Aj federal court may raise sua sponte a petitioner's failure to exhaust state law remedies
http://search.txcourts.gov/CaseSearch, search for Albert Wayne Ware, last visited
Apr. 2,
201.
-3-
and apply that doctrine to bar federal litigation of petitioner's claims until exhaustion is complete."
Magouirkv. Phillips, 144 F.3d 348, 357 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Granberryv. Greer, 481 U.S. 129,
129-33 (1987)). And before taking this action, the court must generally give a petitioner "notice
and an opportunity to respond to the exhaustion issue." Kurtzemann
v.
Quarterman, 306 F.
App'x 205, 206 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209-10 (2006)). "This
rule against no-notice sua sponte dismissal is subject to two exceptions: if the dismissal is without
prejudice, or if the plaintiff has alleged his best case." Brown v. Taylor, 829 F.3d 365, 370 (5th
Cir. 2016) (citing Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998)).
The Court ordered Ware to show cause, on or before March 15, 2018, why it should not
dismiss his petition because he failed to exhaust his remedies in the state system. Order,
Warning, and Advisory, ECF No. 4. The Court warned Ware that if he failed to timely respond, it
could, on its own initiative and without further notice to him, dismiss his cause for failure to
prosecute or failure to comply with a court order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b). Lczrsonv. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (SthCir.1998). The Court advised Ware that "[t]his
authority [under Rule 4 1(b)] flows from the Court's inherent power to control its docket and
prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases." Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd.,
756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).
As of this date, Ware has not responded to the Court's order. And because Ware failed to
respond, the Court concludes it should dismiss his cause without prejudice. No less drastic
sanction is available here, given that Ware has not complied with the Court's order.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a habeas corpus proceeding "[u]nless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l) (2012). To warrant
a certificate as to claims that the district court rejects solely on procedural grounds, the petitioner
must show both 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."
Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000). The Court finds that jurists of reason would not debate whether its procedural ruling
in this case is correct. The Court, therefore, finds it should deny Ware a certificate of
appealability.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that Ware is not entitled to federal
habeas corpus relief at this time. Accordingly, the Court enters the following orders:
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Albert Wayne Ware's "Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody" under 28 U.S.C.
§
2254 (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Albert Wayne Ware is DENIED a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that all pending motions, if any, are DENIED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the District Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this
3
day of April, 2018.
ID C. GU DERRAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
D
-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?