Opinion
No. 3:04-CV-0114-K
February 2, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
A. Nature of the Case: This is a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by a state inmate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
B. Parties: Petitioner is an inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID). Respondent is Douglas Dretke, Director of TDCJ-CID.
C. Statement of the Case: On November 13, 2000, a jury convicted petitioner of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Cause No. FOO-01976-H. (Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (Pet.) at 2.) On May 14, 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas dismissed his appeal. (Id. ¶ 9.) He filed no petition for discretionary review. See Brown v. State, No. 05-01-00090-CR, http://www.courtstuff.com/FILES/05/01/05010090.HTM (docket sheet information generated Sept. 18, 2003, hereinafter referred to as State Docket sheet) (Official internet site of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas). On July 25, 2001, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed petitioner's first state writ because his direct appeal was still pending. See Court of Crim. Appeals of Tex. Hand Down Op. for July 25, 2001, http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opin-ions/07252001hd.htm (accessed Jan. 28, 2004) (Official internet site of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Petitioner's state writ filed March 12, 2003, remains pending before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. (Pet. at 4 . ¶ 23.)
II. EXHAUSTION
A petitioner must fully exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). To exhaust in accordance with § 2254, a petitioner must fairly present the factual and legal basis of any claim to the highest available state court for review prior to raising it in federal court. See Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789, 795 (5th Cir. 1993); Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 1985); Carter v. Estelle, 677 F.2d 427, 443 (5th Cir. 1982). In Texas, a prisoner must present his claim to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a petition for discretionary review or an application for writ of habeas corpus. See Bautista v. McCotter, 793 F.2d 109, 110 (5th Cir. 1986); Richardson, 762 F.2d at 432. To exhaust in accordance with § 2254, a petitioner must fairly present all claims to the state courts prior to raising them in federal court. Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789, 795 (5th Cir. 1993).
In this case, petitioner has not fairly presented his claims to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He has a state writ pending in state court. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has thus not yet considered it. Furthermore, it dismissed petitioner's prior state writ without consideration. In addition, petitioner has filed no petition for discretionary review, so the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has also had no opportunity to consider the claims raised on direct appeal. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has simply had no opportunity to review the claims raised in the instant federal petition.
A federal district court may raise the lack of exhaustion sua sponte. Shute v. State, 117 F.3d 233, 237 (5th Cir. 1997). It is well-settled that federal courts can dismiss without prejudice a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus that contains unexhausted grounds for relief. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). As a matter of comity, 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 federal habeas petition that contains unexhausted claims must be dismissed in its entirety. Thomas v. Collins, 919 F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir. 1990); Bautista, 793 F.2d at 110.
Because petitioner has not fairly presented any claim to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that court has had no opportunity to review the claims raised in the instant federal petition. A ruling from the federal court at this juncture would preempt the state court from performing its proper function. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 518 (the exhaustion requirement is "designed to protect the state courts' role in the enforcement of federal law and prevent the disruption of state judicial proceedings"). Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to habeas corpus relief for failure to exhaust his state remedies. Until the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rules on his pending state writ, he has not exhausted his state remedies.
III. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby recommends that the instant habeas corpus petition be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBTECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on all parties by mailing a copy to each of them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file and serve written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).