Opinion
No. 3:01-CV-1438-G
November 8, 2002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.s.c. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is a habeas corpus proceeding brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On December 16, 1993, Petitioner was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, to wit, cocaine. Petitioner was sentenced to ten years probation. On May 17, 1998, Petitioner was arrested for violating his probation. On May 18, 1998, the state court modified the terms of Petitioner's probation to include treatment at a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAF-PF). The Texas Department of Criminal Justice SAF-PF then placed a hold on Petitioner.
On July 15, 1998, the Dallas County Sheriffs Office received warrants for Petitioner's arrest from the Cambridge, Maryland Police Department. The hold from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice SAF-PF prohibited Petitioner's release to the Maryland authorities. On June 21, 1999, the SAF-PF hold was released. On July 9, 1999, Petitioner was released to the Maryland authorities. On August 31, 1999, the Texas state court issued a capias for Petitioner to be returned to Dallas County after his Maryland sentence. The capias requires that Petitioner be returned to receive treatment at a SAF-PF under the conditions of his probation.
Petitioner argues that the capias prohibits him from being unconditionally released by the Maryland authorities once he serves his sentence in that state. Petitioner seeks to have this Court order the Texas Fourth District Court of Dallas County to release the capias it placed on him.
Respondent argues that Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies. Petitioner argues he should be excused from exhausting his state remedies. The Court finds this petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
EXHAUSTION OF STATE COURT REMEDIES
A petitioner must fully exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). This entails submitting the factual and legal basis of any claim to the highest available state court for review. Carter v. Estelle, 677 F.2d 427, 443 (5th Cir. 1982). A Texas 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. MeCotter, 793 F.2d 109, 110 (5th Cir. 1986); Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 1985). 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.
The petition shows that Petitioner's claims have not been presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition also shows that Petitioner has filed no state petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Although the terms of § 2254(b)(2) provide that an application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits notwithstanding the applicant's failure to exhaust his state court remedies, complete exhaustion assists the federal courts in their review because federal claims that have been fully exhausted in state courts will necessarily be accompanied by a more complete factual record. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982).
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court dismiss the habeas corpus petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.